Biography GA‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

Oct 2001 to Mar 2005 Mar 2005 to Dec 2005 Jan 2006 to Oct 2006 Next to start

I've never done this before so forgive me if I screw up, but looking at the Early Life section the dates are clearly messed up, he was born in 1911 but enlisted in the Navy in 1904, left in 1908 and re-enlisted in 1917 (at the ripe age of 6?)... Someone who is more experienced should take a look at that. Also seems contradictory with information in the section on his military career, which reports he entered the Navy in the 40's as a LTJG.--JaymzRR 04:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's Hubbard's father you're thinking of (he was the one who enlisted in 1904). Perhaps this needs to be made clearer. -- ChrisO 08:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see thanks for the clarification, it was a long sentence and I got lost! And here I was so excited I had finally seen a real error! Everyone ignores my last one =P--JaymzRR 04:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this article on the following 7 criteria:

1. Well-written: Pass
2. Factually accurate: Pass
3. Broad: Pass
4. Neutrally written: Pass
5. Stable: Neutral
6. Well-referenced: Pass
7. Images: Pass

Congratulations, it passes. I gave Stable a neutral because it is a vandal target, but not a very big one, as it is currently being hit at 1 every 1 to 2 days. I was pleasantly surprised at the neutral handling of such a controversial man, and I would suggest that this article be sent to Peer Review in hopes of one day becoming a Featured Article. --PresN 20:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This reviewer is real lax in his criteria. LuciferMorgan 21:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too sure on the well written criteria. It certainly isn't NPOV though. There aren't many references. I'm gonna be bold and change the raiting. --Signed by: Chazz - (responses). @ 16:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you haven't given any specific examples of a lack of NPOV either here or your section below, I'm going to be bold and change it back to that given by the reviewer until you can provide such examples. --163.1.165.116 18:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I disagree with Scientology this article isn't NPOV. A good NPOV article should be able to be read by a reader without being able to tell the personal believes of the author(s) of the article. Upon reading this article, it appears obvious that it's collective authors, of content/editing that has been included, is anti-scientology. I haven't read the talk pages so I don't know who has written it. I'm not involved in this topic at all - I was just reading it. However, I read my talk pages periodically. --Signed by: Chazz - (responses). @ 16:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will mark article as NPOV. --Signed by: Chazz - (responses). @ 16:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything specific? --Tilman 17:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started from the bottom. The first example is the section "Hubbard in popular culture" is almost completely unsourced though clearly written to ridicule Hubbard as a person, with typical propaganda wordings like "it is thought" or the - again unsourced - under-the-belt sidenote that Hubbard was negatively talked about more after his death than before. If he would have come up in that many areas ("novels, motion pictures, television cartoons, video games and other cultural forms") in the way described, it should be easy to reference it. Also the meaning of "he was also the most prolific posthumous author that year" is not clear (maybe because some of his books were republished that year?). I found a Wiki symbol for such POS and added it accordingly. Does anyone have Hubbard's Rocky Mountain News interview of 20 Feb 1983? All I can find on the net are digested versions from known critics. COFS 04:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tilman. This refers to the revision you just did contrary to WP:POV, WP:CIV and is rude. If you do not feel like sticking to Wikipedia policy right now, go "take a walk" (which is another Wikipedia policy or guideline, I believe). Or go back to bed. In good faith I assume that you did not read the talk page before doing that. COFS 05:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's your problem? I added the source. --Tilman 05:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want to convince me that you did not see that you rv'ed a bunch of changes "by adding a source"?! Come! On! Sorry however for rvv'ing it, I just put it back. COFS 05:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Guiness citation at thebookstandard.com is for the previous Most Translated record from last year. It doesn't cover the new "Most Published" claim. (I believe Guinness probably did it, but anything in that first paragraph needs a cite or it'll be hit by a crossfire of edits.) AndroidCat 18:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Guiness cite should be removed as it is generally misleading. It might depend on what you consider "most translated" but it seems to be obvious that Authors like Shakespeare, Christie have been translated into more languages. One source is for this can be found at the Unesco website [1]. Please note that the number of languages is not identical given with the index, as languages are counted double.212.182.93.178 23:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is well cited and he got the awards. What is your point? If Shakespeare had been the most-translated then the record would have gone to Shakespeare, not Hubbard. It went to Hubbard. --Justanother 23:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the cite might be useful to add but not in the introduction. What is totally lacking here (and also on the Guiness webpage) is actually how "Most translated author" is defined. I found an interesting discussion about this topic here [2]. In my opinion the poster was totally right when he refered that most translated could mean:

"...most translated author [could be defined as]

* in terms of number of total languages for the author

* in terms of number of works that have been translated

* in terms of number of words that have been translated

* in terms of number of translated works which have been sold

and a combination of these because an author might have written 100 books of which 50 of them might have been translated, of which 45 were only translated into 1-2 languages, and 5 recent best sellers translated into 20 languages each. Yet, if the majority of these books are childrens' books containing an average of 200-1000 words, then the volume of translation is low, but the potential volume of sales is high.(...)"

Hence, the problematic issue is that a reader cannot easily understand this claim, opposed e.g. if Ron Hubbard would be the fastest 100m sprinter in the world even without knowing the exact definition of the underlying issue this would be acceptable as the average reader could implicit the matter. If would it stays like this it is definitely smattering in my point of view. Maybe someone has access to a current issue of the Guiness Book of Records? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.19.97.146 (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A review of the list of the translated languages shows that a number of them are, at best, dialects. (And then there's the whole question of what are basically self-published works.) My impression is that Guinness fell down badly on their fact checking in this case. However, it remains that Guinness lists Hubbard as the current record holder (unclear as "most translated author" is), and there are reliable sources that they did. So, for this article, what do you suggest? Keeping the Guinness listing, removing it, adding an awkward sentence saying that it's unclear what "most translated" means (with cites to reliable sources saying so), other sources that disagree who is "more translated"? AndroidCat 15:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AndroidCat here. Guinness is generally considered a reliable source, even if the actual nature of "most translated" is rather vague and actually quite meaningless. (Was Hubbard the world's most translated author when he died in 1986? No? Then the record is really not reflecting on Hubbard, but on efforts made on his behalf in the twenty years since he died.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death isn't really a factor. Shakespeare hasn't published much recently either, but is still counted high in total works translated.[3] (And some of his works are now available in the original Klingon.) :) AndroidCat 17:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to remove it from the introduction. I'd consider a cite in the introduction should state something that is clear and easily understandable. When I read this article I just thought: "He should be the most translated author? I can't believe that". Then i did some research and it became obvious that Guinness must have interpreted this record category different than any other would do. Even thought considering that Guiness might be a reliable source on records, this seems to be poorly researched. Even in the new version saying "(...) having published 1,084 fiction and non-fiction works that have been translated into 71 languages (...)" it is unclear for what he got this award. For the number of languguages, the number of works or both? I would move it to "Controversial episodes", but in order to do so some reliable citations like data from the Unesco would have to be added to make this understandable. Otherwise I think this is a well-written (and neutral as it could be) article.83.19.97.146 12:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry if you do not like that he got those awards but he did. Please see Wikipedia:Lead section

"The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, . . ."

One of Hubbard's primary identities is "writer". The awards speak directly to what makes him "interesting or notable" as a writer. We do not go through the articles "second-guessing" every well-cited claim. That is worse than WP:NOR. That is simple and blatant bias. Guinness has world-wide repute on the subject of records. They gave him the awards. Write them a letter if you think they screwed up and maybe they will give them to someone else and then you can come back here and remove them. --Justanother 16:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you got me totally wrong on this topic. For me it is not a matter if I like the fact that he got the award or not. I come from an academic background where you have to prove your sources and even more important where you have to cite them reasonably within your own work. This also means that you don't use sources where you actually know or should know (of course regarding to which extent you are working on a topic) that they are either wrong or indeed questionable. This is an example: The organization might be credible in general but a 2 minute research on the internet reveals the both the actual award and the definition base seems to be very doubtful. Just to put it in other words, do you think it is ok to cite on Wikipedia (an award), where you know at least that the basis (of this award) is thin if not wrong? However, to cut a long story short I actually agree with the current lead stating "...declared (...)". I think for most readers it should be clear that this record might be contentious. --[User:212.182.93.178|212.182.93.178]] 23:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I do sincerely apologize if I miscast your remarks. (As an aside, it would help if you used a username as, personally, I make little distinction between anons.) Since you started off with "The Guiness cite should be removed as it is generally misleading", I figured you to be a critic (POV) as, IMO, a non-critic (NPOV) would have simply asked that it be clarified or perhaps moved elsewhere. Clearly, the UN database is of number of different translated works while the award was given, apparently, for most languages, so the UN database entry is irrelevant though worth mentioning absent more info on the nature of the award. I added a better link that explains that is for most languages. It is an important award and speaks to his notability so it belongs in the lead section. --Justanother 14:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Parody" contains what is likely a lot of OR. If it does not say Hubbard by name then it is not a reference that can stand without a reliable source saying it is a reference to Hubbard. A parody or ridicule that names Hubbard by name is self-sourcing but its existence should still be sourced. I do not know what Antaeus has sourced on this last one but my guess is it is simply the source of what he considers a parody; not a source that says it is a parody of Hubbard. Antaeus would you please clarify what you have sourced. I do, of course, find it interesting that so many unsourced entries serving to ridicule Hubbard exist in the article. Do you think if I go over to the Catholic Pope article I will see a section entitled parody and reference to Battle Pope and every song that says "Fuck the pope?" Hmm, just checked and didn't see that parody section in the Pope article. Maybe we should add it. Since I am already being crude let me tell you what I really think. If some "artist" writes a song and it contains the lyric "L. Rob Hookah buttfucks pigs", why, someone would sure like to see that in the L. Ron Hubbard article. Simply because they figure it MUST be reference to LRH, and every scandalous reference to Hubbard belongs on wikipedia, doesn't it? So now we have managed to put a link between Hubbard and pig-fucking in what is supposed to be an encyclopedic article on Hubbard. Great work! For someone, I guess. Someone with an agenda using wikipedia as a PR tool. And no one is "responsible". The person that wrote the song never said it was about Hubbard; no reliable source says it was about Hubbard; and of course the person that put it there is simply "contributing to wikipedia". How about we take a stand here. Let's pull the back-door unsourced slurs. Please. I would appreciate it if someone would stand up and start; if I do it is more "justanother POV". Thanks. --Justanother 03:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wake me up if you want to discuss something specific that is actually in the article, unlike wgertian-style pig relationships. AndroidCat 04:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning; let's start with this one:

"In Neal Stephenson's book Snow Crash, there is a character named L. Bob Rife who has an ocean-going fleet centered on a surplus aircraft carrier, and populated by mind-controlled followers." Hubbard = Rife = mind-control.

Or this one:

"In the David Eddings series of Tamuli books, a silly theatrical character who performs and tells tall tales in front of locals to gain support for a strange cult is named Elron (L. Ron)." Hubbard = Elron = silly = liar = strange.

--Justanother 04:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should be as strict as justanother suggests in vetting parodies--the "Fallout" video game that features "Hubologists" is clearly a parody of Scientology, even though it doesn't say the word "Scientology" or "Hubbard"--I'd still call that self-verifying. But I think there should be some threshold of notability--every LRH joke on YouTube doesn't need to be listed.

More importantly, Justanother's larger question is a good one: why have this "parody" section at all? I'd say it's enough to mention that Hubbard has frequently been a figure of fun in popular culture, give a couple of examples, and put the rest of the info, to the extent it qualifies, in the dedicated article on cultural references to Scientology. That stuff is describing cultural references, not the life and works of Hubbard. Opinions? BTfromLA 06:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BT on both counts: 1) the "parody" section, as just about any "list" section seems to do, has suffered from list creep; 2) Justanother is being unreasonably unreasonably strict in vetting parodies. I do not even understand what his accusation "I do not know what Antaeus has sourced on this last one but my guess is it is simply the source of what he considers a parody; not a source that says it is a parody of Hubbard" is supposed to mean. What is he alleging, and does his allegation fall within the boundaries of WP:AGF? Justanother clearly insisted on a citation which said "The character of L. Bob Rife is based on L. Ron Hubbard" and that's what he received; does he have any reason other than not actually wanting any such citation to exist or to be found for asserting that the citation he received must be other than what he requested? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antaeus, I apologize for misunderstanding what you had referenced. I cannot access that reference (here) without an account. Perhaps you have an access through a university. I did not know what you had referenced and I queried it. I apologize for guessing and guessing wrongly. If you would like to discuss this personal aspect further please feel free to address it on my talk page. If you have access to the full article and it sources that that was a reference to Hubbard then good find! and your word is certainly good enough for me.

As regard BT's proposal. My feeling is that the parody adds nothing of substance to the article, nothing of value about Hubbard, other than that Hubbard is/was parodied. Many, if not most, aspects of American culture are parodied. President Bush is parodied practically every week on Saturday Night Live yet I doubt that Bush's bio has a parody section (of course, it doesn't). For my money, a very prominent mention that he is parodied, even one placed in the intro area, then link to the already existing List of Scientology references in popular culture would do just fine and, as a side benefit, would avoid duplication of material. Ps; there is a great old "parodyish" ref in one of Heinlein's novels (Lazarus Long? Cat that walked through walls? Just found one mention that says it is in "Friday") about "queue battles" and how the Hubbardites (or something) were to be feared for their great organization during battle. --Justanother 19:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the opinions of the three of us for a consensus, and changed the parody section accordingly. BTfromLA 04:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with moving all of them. For example, The Rocket to the Morgue one is an interesting look at Hubbard in the 1941-42 period (even if not factual), and it has nothing to with Scientology. AndroidCat 05:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify -- they haven't been moved to the other article, only to here. I agreed that there was some list creep, but never meant to suggest that destroying the list was an adequate response. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As well, the 1994 Ig Nobel Prize in Literature to Hubbard should be here. Like all lists, it will have to be pruned and kept pruned, but I don't think it can be cut to nothing. For other examples, the Pope was the wrong place to look. Obviously Justanother should have started with the King :) AndroidCat 11:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, comparing a single person (Hubbard) with a title that has been occupied by many different people over a couple of thousand years (the Pope) does not exactly make for an airtight argument... -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I overreacted by pulling the whole list out. I'll offer no objection if you folks want to restore a few well chosen examples, but the existing list seemed to me to have swollen in such a way as to wander pretty far from an encyclopedic treatment of Hubbard's life and works. BTfromLA 17:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, the Ig Nobel award is a good one for the main article. LRH has won a ton of other awards, too. They have a place here also. What exactly is the purpose of the Rocket to the Morgue reference if it is possibly "not factual"? This is a biographical article. Are we making the point that he used pen names? That point is already made with factual data. He actually did get the Ig Noble so fine, include it. Re: the Pope, he is the subject of parody; parody not mentioned. Re: Bush (an individual), he is the subject of parody; parody not mentioned. I can find any number more. --Justanother 02:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rocket to the Morgue reference is interesting because of the character sketchs of the writers in California in 1941. Robert Heinlein is featured as well, including a number of actual details of his home. Since this was published in 1942, long before any polarization over Dianetics and Scientology, the book is something of a preserved time capsule of the F&SF writers and publishing business of that time (as seen by Anthony Boucher and interpreted for his fictional murder mystery, of course). This sort of Tuckerization (as it was later termed) is quite common, and is usually done as a fun in-joke. (Heh, I see Steve Stirling has gotten kinder in his Tuckerizations—he killed off most of the rest of the Bunch of Seven in his Drakka books!) AndroidCat 03:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds cool, I'll have to read it! Thanks --Justanother 03:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hubbard was awarded the 1994 Ig Nobel Prize in Literature for "his crackling Good Book, Dianetics, which is highly profitable to mankind — or to a portion thereof". The presenter observed he was also the most prolific posthumous author that year.

In 2001,an independent film called The Profit was produced, which featured a character called L. Conrad Powers, founder of the Church of Spiritual Science, who used a device called a Mind Meter. Although the producers stressed that any resemblance to Scientology was entirely coincidental, the Church of Scientology obtained an injunction blocking its release.^[1] However, some of those who saw the film, even critics of Scientology, derided it as over the top, and the organisation behind the film's production, Human Rights Cinema, was accused of being an anti-cult group.^[2][3]

On the South Park episode "Trapped in the Closet", it was claimed that Stan Marsh is L. Ron Hubbard reincarnated and that Hubbard was a "prophet". As a reference to Scientology's litigious tendencies, all the credits at the end of this episode were changed to read "John/Jane Smith". The episode also has an animated version of the Xenu story; in case a viewer might mistakenly think South Park was exaggerating for satiric effect, this sequence is accompanied by a caption reading "This is what Scientologists actually believe". Isaac Hayes, who voiced "Chef" on the show and is himself a Scientologist, ostensibly left the cast on account of this episode. However, it isn't clear whether this was his own decision or a decision of upper-level Scientologists; during a radio interview on The Opie and Anthony Show after the episode aired, Hayes defended South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone, saying, "If you take the shit they say seriously, then I'll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge for two dollars". South Park further parodied Scientology when Isaac Hayes left South Park over the issue: in The Return of Chef - "Chef" is portrayed as being brainwashed by some "fruity little club," a group of child molesters called the "Super Adventure Club", a veiled reference to Isaac Hayes and his links to Scientology.

Anthony Boucher's murder mystery Rocket to the Morgue (1942) features cameos of members of the Mañana Literary Society of Southern California. Hubbard makes a dual appearance as D. Vance Wimpole and Rene Lafayette (one of his pen names). Jack Parsons is also there as the character "Hugo Chantrelle".

In Frank Zappa's rock-opera album Joe's Garage the main character Joe seeks advice from L. Ron Hoover of the First Church of Appliantology, who directs him to a lifestyle of having sex with appliances and robots.

In the David Eddings series of Tamuli books, a silly theatrical character who performs and tells tall tales in front of locals to gain support for a strange cult is named Elron (L. Ron).

Philip K. Dick's short story The Turning Wheel features a post-apocalyptic religion following the teachings of "the Bard, Elron Hu".

Niven and Pournelle's novel Inferno (a retelling of Dante's Inferno) has a description of a one-time science fiction writer who created his own religion "that masks as form of lay psychiatry" and is now - quite literally - in hell as a result.

There have also been numerous other jabs at L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology from other sources; for example, the final city in the computer game Fallout 2 contains the Hubologist cult which is a direct take on Scientology.

Hubbard is also a featured character in the novel The Chinatown Death Cloud Peril by Paul Malmont.

On the Millennium episode "Jose Chung's Doomsday Defense", the (fictional) writer Jose Chung interviews a member of the "Church of Selfosophy", founded by his former science fiction writer colleague, "J. Onan Goopta".

Steve Martin's movie, Bowfinger, features a cult called "Mindhead" whose posh celebrity center is said to be based on a Hollywood facility serving Scientology's star clientele.

Steven Soderbergh's 1996 comedy Schizopolis features a cult called Eventualism led by one T. Azimuth Schwitters which is seemingly inspired by Hubbard.

In Neal Stephenson's book Snow Crash, there is a character named L. Bob Rife who has an ocean-going fleet centered on a surplus aircraft carrier, and populated by mind-controlled followers.^[4]

The Snake Oil Wars by Parke Godwin satirizes Hubbard by having him serving his time in Hell as an answering machine.

The song Ænema, by the band Tool, denounces Hubbard with the line "...fuck L. Ron Hubbard and fuck all his clones."

The satirical art religion "The Church of the SubGenius" has as its prophet and Messiah figure a 1950's appliance salesman named J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, whose image of an always-smiling, pipe-smoking, Brylcreem covered head is appropriated from 1950's clip art. The Texas based group also integrates elements of Fundamentalist Christianity and televangelists into their writings and media projects.

L-Ron, a sentient robot from the DC Comics universe, and former assistant to Manga Khan, is named after Hubbard, as other robot assistants Khan of were named after science fiction writers (Hein-9, K-Dikk).

In the 1986 film, Stoogemania, which deals with a Three Stooges fan (Josh Mostel) attempting to break his addiction to the comedy threesome, said fan ends up going to a rehab clinic run by a mysterious figure named "L. Ron Howard" ('Howard' being the last name shared by Moe, Curly and Shemp). "L. Ron Howard" only appears on TV screens at the clinic - he is never seen in person.

Could someone with knowledge about US academic szene check whether it is correct to claim that Ron "majored" in Civil Engineering? According to wikipedia [4], it means "the primary focus of a Bachelor's degree". Taking one course for one semester [5] isn't a "primary focus". --Tilman 18:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, in a four-year school, you get on a "major track" right from the get-go. I do not know what LRH's major was. And I do not know how that school was structured in the 30's. From the transcript it looks like engineering. We could perhaps say he majored in engineering then. I assumed that the "took a course in" was UK for "majored in" because what would be the point otherwise of mentioning that one course out of 20 (of course I get the point of mentioning the other, nuclear physics). --Justanother 18:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go:

In September of 1930, Ron was admitted to George Washington University School of Engineering with a major in civil engineering.

From a source you would most likely respect (joke - I sure don't but useful for some stuff).--Justanother 18:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in the U.K. "took a course in" normally means just that : any course at any level ( evening class, college etc ), which is not the same as what I understand "majored in". For university we normally say took engineering at XX university, or did engineering or ( formally ) read engineering. 217.7.209.108 12:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence from this section: "In 1978, Hubbard was convicted of felony fraud and sentenced to four years in jail and a 35,000₣ fine by a French court. Hubbard refused to serve his jail time or pay his fine and went into hiding." There is an article in the International Herald Tribune, March 3 1980, titled "Court in France Recognizes Cult, Acquits Ex-Head", with this passage: "The court's president indicated that the three others [Hubbard included], who were sentenced in their absentia, might be acquitted if they appealed." Although it seems Hubbard never bothered to appeal, is it significant enough to add this information? Raymond Hill 06:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"He was attended by "Commodore's Messengers", teenaged girls dressed in white hot pants who waited on him hand and foot, bathing and dressing him and even catching the ash from his cigarettes. He had frequent screaming tantrums and instituted brutal punishments such as incarceration in the ship's filthy chain-locker for days or weeks at a time and "overboarding", in which errant crew members were blindfolded, bound and thrown overboard, dropping up to 40 ft. into the cold sea, hoping not to hit the side of the ship with its sharp barnacles on the way down. These punishments were applied to children as well as to adults [1]."- http://www.xenu.net/

As horrific an ordeal this is one must remember, I think, that the Mediterranean can not reasonably be considered "cold". A quick glance at xenu.net sufficiently impresses me that the site wishes to discredit Hubbard and/or Scientology. I think the reader of this article could arrive at their own conclusions without the added bombast from questionable sources.72.23.239.232 22:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever swum in the Mediterranean? It's not a tropical sea by any means, and it gets pretty cold in the winter - see http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/water/Europe/WestMediterranean.htm for current temperatures (as low as 14C / 57F). But I agree, the paragraph you quoted is pretty overheated, and it's badly referenced - xenu.net shouldn't be being used as a reference for that. -- ChrisO 22:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have spent a chilly winter near Marseilles; Do you think Hubbard and his gang would have sailed to warmer winter clime in the Med? 72.23.239.232 23:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't actually get that warm anywhere in the Med in the winter; the best you're going to get at this time of year is about 18-19C. However, Hubbard appears to have spent at least one winter (1966/67) in Morocco, and his fleet visited the Canary Islands as well - both are reasonably warm in the winter. -- ChrisO 23:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the prompt and knowledgeable response.72.23.239.232 23:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antaeus Feldspar used the edit summary to make this accusation against me.

(Justanother, please do not use edit summaries to make gratuitous accusations against your fellow editors. It violates WP:CIVIL.)

(am I the only one that catches the irony there?) Anyway I imagine he thinks I accused ChrisO of something when I removed a POV modifier from what clearly appears to be OR and I posted this edit summary.

(rem POV in this bit of OR. BTW, you should at least give us a quote from the mag in the ref field.)

When I saw ChrisO adding an unsourced conclusion with this edit comment

(Noted changing stories about LRH's life)

He referenced an earlier Church bio. I know that source did not come up with that conclusion. Ergo, I take that to be OR. There is no "accusation" there. It is just logic and perception. Heck, I did not even pull the OR, just asked for a quote to show us what he was basing his opinion on. If ChrisO was insulted I apologize but I do not know why the 3rd party is so quick to jump in the middle.--Justanother 19:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The biography in question is in a 1956 issue of the London Scientology magazine "Certainty", incorporating a biographical interview with L. Ron Hubbard (who was living in London at the time). It's radically different from current Church biographies and there's at least one clear lie in it, where Hubbard is quoted as speaking of his time captaining the British corvette Mist. There was no British corvette named Mist - in fact, we had no commissioned ship of any kind called Mist in WW2 - and Hubbard never commanded a Royal Navy vessel. The Mist was an ex-trawler pressed into service as the USS YP-422, a harbour protection vessel which Hubbard did command. I guess that Hubbard felt that captaining an armed trawler in Boston harbour was less glamorous than fighting in the Battle of the Atlantic.

I think we do need to say something more in the article about how the official account has changed over the years and how Hubbard himself made claims that were exaggerated, false (as in the example I just cited) or contradictory. -- ChrisO 20:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. So you found an old mag that made an error about one of the ships that he actually DID command. Hubbard commanded the Mist as USS YP-422 but it was incorrectly reported that he commanded a British corvette. And, all due respect, you see that as some sort of big lie rather than a simple error on the part of the writer of the piece. OK. Well. OK. Doesn't seem exactly notable to me but OK. --Justanother 21:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article incorporates an interview with Hubbard in which he says verbatim that he commanded a British corvette and goes on to name the ship as the Mist. It's in the context of a complaint about his treatment by the Home Office (at the time they were trying to exclude Hubbard as an undesirable - according to the Home Office's files, they thought he was a crank and wanted to get rid of him). I quote: "The one thing I don't understand is being classified by the Home Office as an 'alien'. When you've captained a British corvette ... I can't seem to get it through my head that when I come home, I am an alien." The article goes on to say: "[H]e was ordered at once to the command of the former British corvette, the Mist, and saw service for the remainder of that year, serving with British and American anti-sumarine war vessels in the North Atlantic. He rose to command a squadron." Every assertion in those two sentences is false, as US Navy and Royal Navy records show, but it was explicitly issued under Hubbard's authority and taken from an interview with him. The "writer of the piece" was, in effect, Hubbard himself.

What's more, it's not the only time Hubbard claimed to have served on corvettes in the North Atlantic. For instance: "I thought I was going to come back to Australia at the end of 42. They shipped me home and within a week gave me corvettes, North Atlantic. And I went on fighting submarines in the North Atlantic and doing other things and so on. And I finally got a set of orders for the ship. By that time I had the squadron." (Hubbard, "Welcome Address", lecture of 7 November 1959) "I reported to Boston in the very early part of the war to take command of a corvette." (Hubbard, "Evolution and Use of Self Analysis", lecture of 29 March 1954) "I was running British corvettes during the war, and I was studying ASW, and they have to do with meters too, you know?" (Hubbard, "E-Meter Talk and Demo", lecture of 7 May 1961)

Numerous official Church biographies published from the 1950s through to the 1970s include the corvette claim as well. But it simply is not true - he never went anywhere near a corvette, let alone an entire squadron of them. If you look at current Church biographies they doesn't make the claim, because it's trivially disprovable. (Check it here - [6].) They say instead that he commanded a "convoy escort vessel in the Atlantic" [7], which is still inaccurate - he actually commanded a harbour patrol boat - but at least it doesn't repeat the corvette lie. There's no doubt that it was a lie, btw - as a sailor, Hubbard would have known very well the difference between a corvette and a trawler. I'm not surprised that the Church has decided not to forward the lie, considering that it's so easily disproved. -- ChrisO 23:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While that may not be strictly accurate, I do not see it as such a reach. Look at corvette. These are light, cheap craft built to mercantile standards and used for escort and coastal ASW. That is the sort of craft that Hubbard commanded. I do not think he was way out-of-line to generalize his duty in that way. Although the British bit may have been a stretch of course but who knows. This is the problem with OR and why OR is not permitted here. You have to come up with an RS for us now or make it go away. Because you are blowing even this incident out of proportion and giving undue weight in the intro. --Justanother 23:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a gross exaggeration, not just a reach. Take a look at this - Image:USS Intensity (PG-93).jpg. It's a Flower class corvette, actually a British design - several were built for the US Navy. It's a large ocean-going warship with substantial armament (heavy machine guns, anti-aircraft guns, cannon, multiple depth charge launchers). Now take a look at this picture of the USS YP-422. It's a civilian trawler converted into a short-range harbour patrol vessel, with a small artillery piece stuck onto the superstructure and a single depth charge launcher aft. It wasn't used for escort and coastal ASW at all - the YP in YP-422 stands for "yard patrol." The two are as different as a battleship and a minesweeper. As a Navy officer, you can bet Hubbard knew this very well - the same pattern of exaggeration and outright falsehood is visible throughout many of his official biographies and his own biographical statements. I've added another example (the "blood brother of the Blackfeet" claim) to the article, and will add more as I work through it. -- ChrisO 00:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My main point remains Chris. You don't need to do this as OR and that is not how we are supposed to work here. Those claims are already available in RS. So if you think that the section Controversial episodes can use more work then you should find those RS's - they are not hard to find and not write a piece yourself. That is OR. --Justanother 00:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not original research, though there's certainly a fine dividing line to be walked here. On this particular question, the corvette issue, we have two sets of sources. On the one hand, Hubbard himself and the various official Church biographies; on the other hand, Hubbard's service record and the various ship lists and directories issued by the US Navy, the Royal Navy, Jane's Fighting Ships, etc. It's not original research to state that the two sets of sources are contradictory. It would be original research to say in the article that the contradiction shows that Hubbard lied. See WP:OR#SYNTHESIS. There's really no need to state Hubbard's falsity explicitly - it's clear enough when the contradictions between his claims and the multiple RS is pointed out. -- ChrisO 00:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant to add this point earlier - I really don't like the "controversial episodes" section of the article. It's not standard practice on Wikipedia to shovel contentious items into a ring-fenced corner of the article. I intend to reduce this section and integrate much if not all of it into the rest of the article - it's an arbitrary grab-bag of things which people might consider reflect badly on Hubbard, and frankly it's not very well written or well sourced. -- ChrisO 01:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justanother, you really need to get a better idea of the dividing line between source-based research, which is exactly what we are supposed to do, and "original research". Citing biographies which differ greatly and noting that they differ greatly is not "original research" -- no more than it is "original research" to describe something which in no uncertain terms potentially fatal as "potentially unsafe". It is, to use your own words, "just logic and perception" and I hope you are not trying to argue that Wikipedia policy was ever designed to preclude the exercise of logic and perception ever benefitting the article namespace. As for me being a "3rd party" in this matter, I hope you are not under the impression that you can make other editors witnesses to your accusations of people violating Wikipedia policy, but deprive them of any opportunity to speak up and voice an opinion that you can be shown far more clearly to have violated WP:CIVIL (which prohibits both "Judgmental tone in edit summaries" and "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another") than ChrisO can be shown to have violated WP:NOR by applying "just logic and perception". Next time you are tempted to throw in a gratuituous accusation by adding a completely unnecessary phrase such as "in this bit of OR" I suggest you refrain. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antaeus, in all seriousness, there is a long history on these articles of ignoring one of the most basic policies of this encyclopedia, WP:NOR. The systematic violation is so ingrained that I think many editors have accepted it as a norm and developed quite a blind spot. Please take a fresh look at the policy:

"Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position"

It is really quite clear to me that for ChrisO or anyone to do "source-based research" and then make any analysis of those materials that has not been previously published is clearly OR. Surely you can see that. Please take a look beyond your POV, beyond everything that has already been done here, beyond your opinion of Scientology or of me personally and just read and analyze that policy. --Justanother 04:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justanother, I have already given you my educated opinion as a Wikipedian, I hope you will recognize, of some experience, and I have spelled out the reasoning behind that educated opinion. No one Wikipedia policy was ever intended to outweigh all others, so the argument that we must prohibit the source-based research we are supposed to do the moment anyone raises the slightest hint of the spectre of "original research" is not a compelling one. I will in fact point you to WP:IAR, which is official policy per Jimbo Wales himself: "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." [Emphasis as per original.] You jump to the conclusion that if I do not subscribe to your rigid interpretation of the one particular rule that you claim is the only relevant one in this circumstance, then I must have developed a "blind spot", I must need a "fresh look", I must have failed to "look beyond [my] POV". I suggest to you that it is you who needs to reconsider policy and contemplate why policies are editable in the first place and why WP:IAR "is policy, and always has been".[8] If you are having trouble understanding what the answer can possibly be, let me suggest that it was wisely foreseen that no fixed policy could be written so as to forestall all misinterpretations (accidental ... or otherwise) and no fixed policy could be written so as to guarantee "the correct thing" being done in all future cases. Therefore a meta-policy was drafted to keep people from pushing policies to the point of absurdity and placing the letter of the "law" above the spirit of the law, or above the goals that the "laws" were drafted to accomplish in the first place. (An example of such pushing policy to the point of clear absurdity would be, oh, arguing that it is original research to 'synthesize' "The Barley Formula contains honey" and "honey can cause the fatal disease of infant botulism" to get "The Barley Formula is potentially dangerous." Such an argument, as far as I'm concerned, identifies its proposer as having less interest in improving and maintaining Wikipedia than in manipulating it to his own ends.)

Now, if you don't care to take into account my years of Wikipedia experience in evaluating the argument I presented, I view that as a misguided choice on your part but one that is yours to make. However, your choice to ignore that argument entirely and instead allege that if I do not agree with your "logic and perception" that ChrisO's logic and perception is OR then that is not "my" logic and perception but instead must be my "blind spot" is unwisely arrogant and rude. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course,I disagree with your interpretation that I see as a willingness to forgo broad and direct application of the most basic principles of wikipedia in order to use these articles to tar Scientology; which tarring you no doubt feel is deserved. That is what I mean by your POV (that Scientology deserves the tarring it gets here). You are entitled to it. You are not entitled to use this encyclopeda any way you choose to forward it (the WP:IAR argument). That is hardly "improving" the encyclopedia. And if you expect me to walk on eggshells when addressing you then you had best not engage me as you did in starting this as I have no intention of walking on eggshells and you can cast my remarks as uncivil and personal attacks just as much as you care to. They are neither. They are direct. But don't worry, I won't play the same game with your remarks which are at least just as "egregious". Personal attack is personal attack and uncivil is uncivil and I think we can both recognize it when we really see it. And yes, some policies were "intended to outweigh all others"., They are called the WP:PILLARS; WP:IAR is NOT one of them and let me highlight something from them for you

Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles elucidated here. [emphasis added]

G'nite, I am going back to bed now. --Justanother 09:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justanother, if you haven't already done so, please take a look at WP:OR#SYNTHESIS, which contains an example exactly analogous to the issue we're facing on this article. This formulation is cited as a legitimate summary of contrasting sources:

Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, and says it's acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.

In our case, we would say something like "Church biographies and L. Ron Hubbard himself claim that he served on corvettes in the North Atlantic, commanded a British corvette called the Mist and eventually rose to command the "Fourth British Corvette Squadron". However, US Navy and Royal Navy records show that the Royal Navy did not have a ship called the Mist in World War II and that Hubbard's service in the North Atlantic was confined to a brief spell in command of the USS YP-422, a harbor patrol vessel assigned to Boston Navy Yard, which had formerly been the civilian trawler Mist. There is no record of him ever having served on a corvette."

That sort of formulation - with references, of course - is exactly what's needed and required in an article where the sources conflict. It would count as original research only if we went one step further and said "Therefore it is clear that Hubbard was lying about his war service." That's what WP:OR would call "a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" (though as WP:OR says, ""A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article" - if there's a RS that says Hubbard lied, that's fair enough.) This is long-standing and well-understood policy. -- ChrisO 11:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess Justanother has made his position clear that Assume good faith is another of the policies of Wikipedia that he's just too good to follow, despite it being incorporated in the PILLARS of Wikipedia he purportedly respects. It's so much easier to accuse someone else of deliberately avoiding "broad and direct application of the most basic principles of wikipedia" for POV purposes than it is to acknowledge that someone else may have a different interpretation of how the rules should be applied, or God forbid, that having been on Wikipedia five times longer, they might even be right in that interpretation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golly, but when the sign clearly says "Don't walk on the grass" and here you are, playing football on the grass. Well, I "guess" you could say you are not "walking". But those cleats sure do tear stuff up. Wikipedia is designed to reiterate published material. That is the long and the short of it. You don't like that because much of what you hold near and dear is not published in RS (and with good reason). Sorry Charlie, that is the way the ball bounces. You are trying to make wikipedia something it is not but, however, it is what it is (or at least what it was intended to be) for good reason. The hell of it is that, up to now, you have done pretty well. So congrats! --Justanother 06:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justanother, I've read the part of the article relating to Hubbard's military service, and I fail to see where is the problem. I would appreciate if you could copy here the text you believe that should not be part of the article, I would like to provide my view on this (if any), if that can be of any help. Raymond Hill 07:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raymond. More than a specific passage that ChrisO is presently working on, my objection is to his and Antaeus' interpretation of the basic nature of wikipedia, which interpretation is evidenced by ChrisO's using source documents to generate his edits, rather than using published reliable sources. Again, the weird thing, to me, is that this material is already available in RS and there is not even a need to do it this way which indicates, to me, a basic misunderstanding of the underlying policy. You can see this in that ChrisO's sources are original CoS publications that support his statements and conclusions rather than RS's that echo his statements and conclusions (or better, that he echoes). As fas as specific, I imagine I will object to the Eagle Scout thing when I get around to it. But that is not my point. All his "source-based research" must be refactored to "RS-based research". --Justanother 14:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Justanother is now referring to "source-based research" as something that must be eliminated shows that, far from being qualified to appoint himself the sole interpreter of WP:RS and WP:NOR, he hasn't even actually read those policies that closely. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your illness* goes deep, my young Padewan, it will require much training to overcome it. Please read and understand the following quote from WP:RS re: "source-based research".

"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source."

I am still waiting for you to provide any actual reference that supports interpreting sources such as comparing source (primary) documents and making any conclusion or statement about them (as in "provide" instead of accusing me of not reading when you seem to have missed something yourself). May the Force Be With You! (*illness refers to apparent continued adherence to the concept that NOR is "OR to a point that we decide" and is not intended to further reflect on the editor's spiritual, mental, or physical health) --Justanother 16:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he's unhappy about something I'm proposing to add (see my comments above), rather than the existing content. -- ChrisO 08:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Left. Actually no, ChrisO. I have no idea what you are working on other that what I have already seen and commented on. My objection is not new but is starting to gel nicely. I object to what I perceive as systematic disregard in these articles of the basic principle that wikipedia is built on. That basic principle is not WP:IAR. That basic principle was laid out when Jimbo replaced Nupedia, a peer-reviewed on-line encyclopedia, with Wikipedia. The basic principle is that, in lieu of peer-review, the new entity will only allow material that has already been published in reliable sources. The job of the editors here is to locate and bring together previously published material. I am not sure that you get that you are NOT to be doing "source-based research" and publishing your conclusions here. I think that you believe that there is some "fine line" between what is grass and what is not grass (i.e. that patch looks kinda bare - I don't think it's grass for the purpose of the rule) when all there really is a directive to stay off the grass and stay on the path. All due respect, but I don't think you see that there is a path there. The path is you find the material in RS and then you put it here. It is a simple path. There are no "fine lines" needed; the path is well-marked, "did I find it in RS or did I not". --Justanother 13:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just like to be very specific, it makes it easier for me to provide an opinion. From what I understand, ChrisO wants to use material from "a 1956 issue of the London Scientology magazine 'Certainty'." You oppose to that, on the ground that it is not RS, is that your position? (you told me ChrisO hasn't incorporated the changes you oppose in the article yet, so I can't give an opinion whether or not it's OR) Raymond Hill 18:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond, this all started when I removed one word that I considered to be POV from ChrisO's work. [9]. That word was "greatly". ChrisO was apparently looking at source materials and found some discrepencies and decided that that constituted the "smoking gun" for him to claim in the intro that "the biographical details given in Church biographies have changed greatly over the years." That sort of conclusion is OR. Not only that but characterizing it as "great" was, IMO, POV. We went back and forth a bit, none of it uncivil, and it currently stands as "significant" instead of "great". Probably would have been the end of it (at least for the moment) had Antaeus not decided to "take me to task" for what he perceived as an insult to ChrisO (it wasn't). That started this thread. It went from there to my realization that Antaeus and, likely ChrisO, have what I consider a fundamental misunderstanding of the intended nature of wikipedia. So, in answer to your question; use of those Church materials is hazardous as they are not likely to say what you want them to say (i.e. LRH is full of crap, to put it bluntly) so some OR is necessary to get those materials to convey that idea. If there is any "fine line" then that is it - how do you get Church materials to say other than what they say in order to advance your position without violating WP:NOR. I think that is patently impossible and that is why you should just go to the published RS material instead of being "original". Not to mention that that is what you are supposed to do. Did I answer your question? --Justanother 19:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me offer you a counter-example. If I said "the design of the dustjacket of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health has changed greatly", would you dispute it? It's trivially verifiable - just put a 1950 copy and a 2000 copy side by side - so it easily meets WP:V. There's no research involved, and the truth of the statement is literally indisputable. Would you demand a citation in this case? -- ChrisO 21:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, it is not about whether I dispute anything you say, it is about how wikipedia works. For my money, you can tar Scientology and Hubbard all you like provided that you play by the rules. You have to use the tar you find in the bucket marked "RS". You can't use the tar in your garage. I would say the tar in your mind to complete the analogy but I don't want to be accused of a personal attack (laff). --Justanother 21:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, it's not the kind of thing that needs an external source. It's trivially verifiable and no more controversial than noting changes in different editions of a book (see e.g. The Origin of Species#Publication of The Origin). This sort of trivial textual comparison is basic, long-accepted practice on Wikipedia. I think you're pushing WP:RS way beyond reasonable bounds, and I've given you all the necessary pointers to the relevant policies. I don't propose to spend more time debating the point here. -- ChrisO 23:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not care to discuss this further then that is your right. I have pointed both you and Antaeus at clear written policy including direct quotes to support my position and all I have gotten in return from Antaeus is ad hominem arguments ("I know more than you cause I've been here longer so you should listen to me and anyway, you are a mean man") and "but IAR says we don't have to". And from you I guess the promise that you see some line that you won't cross as far as just how much OR you do when the policy is NOR not "OR to a point". OK. --Justanother 03:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justanother, kindly keep your strawman arguments to yourself. There is no excuse for such mendacious misrepresentations. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antaeus, I don't think anyone is keeping score here so you can stop trying to attack me instead of providing actual support for your position. Any time now. And you continue your ironic accusations of the very things you yourself are equally guilty of (see below and throughout this thread) and with which you began this, for me at least, very enlightening and productive conversation (so for that I thank you). Do you want to be the kettle or the pot? How about the kettle, I think it's my turn to be the pot? If you are ahead in "mendacious misrepresentations" I vote we name you the winner. Or if you like, I'll be the winner. I don't really care. Later. --Justanother 22:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, Justanother seems to be saying "You have one interpretation of how far WP:NOR goes, and I have a different interpretation. But mine's the right one and yours is wrong and I won't hear anything else." Despite the fact that Wikipedians who have been here much longer than he has have been debating for far longer than he's been around the issue of just where the line is between simple logical deduction and novel synthesis, and so far have not found a universally satisfactory answer, he states that there is no such line -- as if someone had actually given him the authority to determine the issue for the whole of Wikipedia, to declare it as "how wikipedia works" and anything else as "fundamental misunderstanding". Having thus backed up his claims with ... nothing but his claims, he then proceeds to violate WP:AGF repeatedly, accusing other editors of only wishing to "tar" Hubbard and Scientology. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Left. As opposed to Antaeus, who is saying "You have one interpretation of how far WP:NOR goes, and I have a different interpretation. But mine's the right one and yours is wrong and I won't hear anything else. You silly n00b". And who continues to try to direct attention off my clear reference to written policy and onto the red herring of my supposed incivility. And I suppose that now you are going to tell me that you do not think that Scientology and Hubbard are deserving of the severest criticism? --Justanother 03:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a more accurate rendition would be "You have one interpretation of how far WP:NOR goes, and I have a different interpretation. It's true that some people have in the past shared your interpretation of how far WP:NOR, but it's also true that a great many people do not share that interpretation, something which perhaps you would be aware of if you had investigated the issue more thoroughly. What is definitely not true is that the issue is a settled one, let alone settled in your favor. What is more, your interpretation of WP:NOR is a very extreme interpretation, where the question of 'what exceptions are there to a literal interpretation of the letter of the rule?' is pretty much answered 'None'. That in itself will suggest to an experienced Wikipedian that this interpretation is incorrect, since Jimbo Wales himself has repeatedly reaffirmed the importance of WP:IAR, a meta-policy which (however much you may dislike its existence) pretty much establishes that there are exceptions to every Wikipedia rule. As for your "supposed" incivility, the longer you repeat your accusations that the only reason anyone could interpret WP:NOR differently than you do is because they want to tar the name of L. Ron Hubbard, when even minimal investigation will show that the debate over the correct interpretation of WP:NOR is certainly not limited to articles about Hubbard/Scientology, the more it becomes clear that you are willfully violating WP:AGF. Anyone who investigates the issue can clearly see that people have been disagreeing about just where the line is between original research and source-based research for a long long time now, yet instead of accepting that those who do not accept your interpretation are merely among many who reject that interpretation because they find it inconsistent with Wikipedia policy as a whole -- you have to accuse them of ulterior motives, of choosing their positions on policy solely to suit their POV. Not only is this unrealistic but to poison discourse with such unfounded accusations is uncivil. It is not "supposed" incivility, it is very real incivility in which you keep persisting." -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to figure the issue at hand, so here is where I am now: Do you disagree that the Church of Scientology's biographies on Hubbard have differed over time? (I just want an answer on that, this is the only issue I am interested now, I am not interested in speculations on what might motivate whomever editor.) Raymond Hill 04:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No --Justanother 04:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess that settles it? ChrisO's point is quite reasonable: it's so trivial that everybody would agree with the statement -- you included. You had a good point when you flagged the use of 'greatly' since there are some subjectivity involved. ChrisO corrected the statement. I believe it's important to have the sentence stated though, since it's an important factual information in my opinion, as it related to many other issues, an article by John Marshall in the Globe & Mail in 1980 comes to mind. Raymond Hill 04:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it settles nothing. Neither you nor I nor ChrisO is the arbiter of reality as far as wikipedia is concerned. The arbiter is the simple question "does it appear in RS?" and, if so, how is it presented in RS. Not how do you nor I nor Chris perceive it or how we agree it is. That is a dark path indeed and means that articles will be a consensus of whatever the editors interested in the article at that moment in time agree on. Which means that I can never turn my back because I, in thinking that despite the personal faults of its founder or anyone else, Scientology is a very viable philosophy with a lot to offer, in thinking that I am very much in the minority here. So my "safety net" is the safety net that is designed into wikipedia which is that it is not our opinion nor our "source-based research"; it is "does it appear in RS". Surely, Raymond, you see that point, and you see how it concerns me much more deeply than "greatly" vs. "somewhat". --Justanother 14:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO gave you an example: "the design of the dustjacket of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health has changed greatly." As far as I am concerned, bringing up this fact in an article is not OR, because there is no one's opinion brought into the article, it's merely stating a fact. I just went and randomly selected a wikipedia article, Sky. Here is a sentence I can find in the article: "During the day the sun can be seen in the sky, unless covered by clouds." So, according to your position, this is original research because not supported by RS. In trying to understand your position, I was wondering if it was because you disagreed that the church's version of Hubbard's life had changed over time, and you don't disagree. You disagree about stating this fact. It has been presented to you as to why it doesn't violate OR/RS. So that's pretty much my opinion on this, and bringing OR/RS — which policies I wholeheartedly agree with — again won't change it. Raymond Hill 16:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That example is trivial and reducing our discussion to a triviality is not going to help anything. Yes, the sign says "Keep off the grass". Can I put my finger on the grass? My hand? A toe? Does it only refer to feet? How much of my foot constitutes "on the grass"? Please look at the same reference from WP:RS that I gave Antaeus

"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source."

The intent of this is clear and it permeates the policies here. No OR means "No OR". Quit trying to find the "fine line" of 'How much of my foot constitutes "on the grass".' The fact that the bios have changed is in RS. You do not have to violate basic wikipedia policy to present that concept. Just go find the RS, for Xenu's sake! --Justanother 16:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough, Justanother, what you present as a quote from WP:RS is not one. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." appears nowhere in that policy. Does something similar appear in the policy? Yes, a similar sentence appears there. However, the sentence you 'quoted' does not. That's a rather serious scholastic error on your part. You might feel that your own sentence, which you represented to us as policy, is close enough to the similar sentence which actually appears in policy, to make the difference negligible. But that is, of course... your interpretation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went find WP:RS, here is what I believe is related to the issue here: "Wikipedia articles may use primary sources [...] to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources." Stating that "church's versions of Hubbard's biography have changed over time" is descriptive, you did state yourself that you agree with that description. Do you believe that the quality of the article is diminished by noting that the church's versions of Hubbard's biography have changed over time? Raymond Hill 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry guys. That quote come from the other policy Mr. Feldspar claims I did not read, WP:NOR. The applicable bit from WP:RS is as Mr. Hill mentions. Please excuse my youthful enthusiam as I was just quoing that from memory and got mixed up (that is a joke, I looked at both and then got mixed up as to which I was quoting). Taking two texts and describing the difference is one thing "Text A has a picture of a flower on the cover while text B has a picture of a dog on the cover." That is what descriptive means! The idea, as mentioned in the policy, is that we could both look and totally agree as to what we are seeing. That cannot be said of "interpreting" such as taking a present day letter about Eagle scout record-keeping 80 years ago and, from that, assuming that LRH was not the youngest boy ever to make Eagle Scout in his day. I can think of any number of scenarios that would counter that bit of OR. But since that bit of OR appears in published material then it can appear here. It could not if one of us had made that conclusion. Right? --Justanother 18:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now we are talking about Eagle Scout? So I guess the other issue is fine with you now. Just went over the Eagle Scout passage in the article, and I fail to see where it is said that "LRH was not the youngest boy ever to make Eagle Scout in his day." Raymond Hill 18:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being, what's the word I'm looking for? Are you really confused? I think you know full well that I have always been talking about the same issue here. --Justanother 18:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, why are you picking nits instead of addressing my issue. This is not the article, this is the talk page, we can leave the nits alone a bit. OK, I should have said "and, from that, assuming that LRH could not have possibly known if he was the youngest boy ever to make Eagle Scout in his day." It does not change my point nor my question and that is why it is more "red herring" (you didn't say it right so I don't have to answer.) I repeat: But since that bit of OR appears in published material then it can appear here. It could not if one of us had made that conclusion. Right? --Justanother 18:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond, I gave you a straight and simple yes or no to your question. How about returning the favor? --Justanother 03:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article could use some checking by neutral editors with no stake in this matter to find biased statements and obvious original research. I removed one instance of obvious original research here [10] but was immediately reverted. Clearly there is no proper citation, but a personal comment. Please adhere to Wikipedia policy which requires independent and 3rd party sources - this is called Wikipedia:Verifiability and also please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Please also do not use software ("vandal proof" it is called?) that is intended for vandalism to revert legitimate edits. Malakaville 14:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you had actually checked the references given, you would have found that "The Church's account of Hubbard's life has changed significantly over the years, with biographies published in Church magazines and books during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s differing considerably from the current official biography" is self-evident. AndroidCat 14:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has been discussed very extensively above (see the thread at #ironic and gratuitous accusations). All of the editors concerned have agreed that the statement is accurate, and a majority have agreed that it is a statement of the obvious. Statements of the obvious ("the sky is blue", "water is wet", "ice is cold") are not OR - they are trivially demonstrable statements of properties of the objects being described. The source for the statement that you object to is the official biographies themselves. To use a comparable example, the source for the statement that the painting of the Mona Lisa depicts a woman is the painting itself - it's an inherent property of the object being described, and the proof of the statement is the object itself. As for the other "biased statements and obvious original research" that you mention, can you provide any examples? -- ChrisO 15:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(after EC. Hiya Chris. There is a bit more to be said here, I think) Fellow Malakan, this was also covered in that painfully long exchange above. I decided to back away from it because it sits near to (although on the wrong side of, as I clearly see now) the only "fine line" that exists in primary "source-based research", almost the definition of OR that some yet think is something allowable in general here (what we are really supposed to be doing is secondary "source-based reporting"). The only "fine line" is describing, not interpreting, primary sources in a manner that complies with the below strict condition (from WP:NOR):

"Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions."

The subject section of the article does contain some evaluative comments that should be removed, to wit: changed significantly and differing considerably. The best one might say is that they differ without evaluating the level of difference, such evaluation being clearly OR even if I or anyone else agree; our agreement is not what makes RS. --Justanother 15:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I think LRH was an unindicted con-man, I'd agree somewhat with the basic objection.

Noting that there are discrepancies between official accounts is trivial, and easily backed up with an "independent" source. (I found one in about ten minutes). On the other hand, listing the items (for the record: "L. Ron Hubbard", Certainty, vol. 3 no. 2, Hubbard Association of Scientologists International, 1956; "L. Ron Hubbard - Explorer of Two Realms", in Mission into Time, Advanced Organisation Saint Hill Denmark, 1973; L. Ron Hubbard : a profile, L. Ron Hubbard Library, 1995) and claiming they contradict is insufficient. If someone wishes to cite these for the discrepancy, they should be cited directly with what each says, to give examples of how they contradict each other. As a hypothetical example, if one claims that he spent his junior year in high school as an exchange student to Jupiter, and another that he was brought back from a childhood in Egypt to Galilee to work as a carpenter until his early thirties — mention both what each says, cite them, and then feel free to note the contradiction, and let the reader infer the degree... although one might even feel free to add quotes from Blue Sky claiming Hubbard's autobiography was his greatest work of fiction. Abb3w 15:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC), SP[reply]

Concur on the latter. On the former, you are entitled, etc, etc. I can as easily think of him an imperfect tool in the hand of the divine. But that's just me. --Justanother 15:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, I allow for the possibility in my talk page response to your question. But that's getting away from the point at hand. Quote the sources, and the reader can figure out the extent.Abb3w 16:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SM Sullivan has made the effort to write Joseph Cressman Thompson, M.D. [11]. Could somebody please help him (not sure if ", M.D." goes in the article name, and the beginning should be bold), and then wikilink it correctly in this article?

I also kept two articles from ars about Snake Thomson, mail me if interested. --Tilman 14:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took M.D. out of the name Joseph Cressman Thompson. and someone has bolded it. Thanks to all. Tilman, if the ARS

articles about Thompson are well-sourced, please add the info to the Thompson article, if it is not already covered.S. M. Sullivan 23:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have upload it temporarly on http://home.snafu.de/tilman/tmp/SNAKE.TXT . It contains one or two publications by him. You might verify these in a library and improve the article, if you wish. --Tilman 17:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/cos/LRH-bio/chinamen.htm is down. Alpine 05:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about expanding the first paragraph thus:

"Lafayette Ronald Hubbard (13 March 1911 – 24 January 1986), better known as L. Ron Hubbard, was an American pulp fiction and science fiction writer and philosopher. Hee is best known as the founder of Scientology and the inventor of its practices of Dianetics."

But is there a consensus that he could really be classified as such? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 08:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is best known as the founder of Scientology and as the source of the Dianetics and Scientology techniques, termed by Hubbard "The Tech" or technology." Absolutely a philosopher and this is better wording for your second line. --Justanother 12:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? There's no certification, licence or degree required to be a philosopher—unlike doctor, nuclear physicist or civil engineer. AndroidCat 14:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am opposed to calling Hubbard a philosopher. He certainly has made no impact on the academic subject. Admittedly, there are other senses of the word "philosopher", but if we agree with the article on Philosophy, then I see no reason why Hubbard counts: "it is generally agreed that philosophy is a method, rather than a set of claims, propositions, or theories. Its investigations are, unlike those of religion or superstition, wedded to reason, making no unexamined assumptions and no leaps based purely on analogy, revelation, or authority." I do not see Hubbard's work as an example of this tradition, any more than Deepak Chopra. (My degree is in philosophy, so I may have some bias here!) Phiwum 15:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree first, that philosophy is somehow devoid of unprovable base hypotheses and second, that Scientology is not based on reason. If I look at John Locke and his theories of the nature of man, I can see this statement in the article: Locke posits an “empty” mind—a tabula rasa—that is shaped by experience. That is an unproven hypothesis not much different in its ability to be "proven" from Hubbard's hypothetical "engram" in Dianetics or "thetan" in Scientology. Hubbard posits "Survive" as the basic drive of life and builds on that and other assumptions in a logical and reasoned manner. That is what philosophers, especially ontologists and epistemologists, do; they start with an unprovable hypothesis and reason from there. The true test of the validity of such reasoning would be if the result explains or predicts human behavior and can effect desirable changes. Hubbard's philosophy passes that test with flying colors in a manner and to a degree never before seen, IMO. Hubbard also had the advantage over many philosophers of having a large and willing group of experimental subjects to test and validate his theories. --Justanother 16:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my earlier assessment. Hubbard does not do philosophy and your glowing review of his predictive and diagnostic success does nothing to change my opinion. Indeed, behavioral prediction and alteration isn't really part of modern philosophical work. (To be sure, for better or worse, experimentation isn't all that relevant to modern philosophy either.)

But we can compromise. Since I'm not a behavioral psychologist, I won't complain if you call him that. Phiwum 00:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I query whether Hubbard knew knew much about philosophy in the first place. The quote below certainly suggests a lack of understanding, given the stereotype it presents. Bear in mind that he wasn't that well educated in the first place (he was homeschooled for periods of his life, and flunked college), and his comments on other subjects - especially basic science - indicate abysmal ignorance. He was first and foremost a writer of speculative fiction, and it's tempting to see Scientology as an extension of this - it's nothing if not speculative! -- ChrisO 08:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I am not, and never will pretend to be, a philosopher. The task of a philosopher is to go off and philosophise. Philosophers normally philosophise all the years of their lives, and in the books of philosophers all the absurdities and wisdom can be found. My entrance into this field of better minds was a forced one; I had a feeling that man ought to progress. It was with astonishment that I discovered that man, for all his prate of science, psychotherapy, all his yap of mysticism and philosophy in general, did not even vaguely know how to improve himself".

Scientology, issue 15H, copyright 1953, as cited in the Anderson Report, chapter 6, page 43. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we were limited to only what Hubbard and the Church of Scientology says about Hubbard and Scientology, that would be my lucky day, wouldn't it (laff). Anywho, while Hubbard is most assuredly a philosopher, the real question is "is it OR for us to decide the point and edit the article based on our decision". --Justanother 21:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hubbard is "most assuredly a philosopher" in the same way that I am most assuredly a trombone player. Sorry, but the modern use of the term "philosopher" does not include Hubbard. Phiwum 00:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Present company excluded; for those for whom the sole true religion is materialism and its close relation scientism; for those, yes, philosophy must be a method analogous to that All Powerful Scientific Method and philosophical inquiry must be premised solely on observable or provable phenomena (and must never ever have any relation to the real world; that must be left to the drug companies and their pushers, the psychiatric "profession"). I wonder how many of our most revered philosophers would fail that "test". Thank goodness there are still people that feel that reason need not be constrained by some artificial "modern definition of philosophy". That is why Hubbard did not want to be counted among their ranks I imagine but I also imagine that history will see him differently. But not yet. Not yet. --Justanother 02:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would "theologian" be more acceptable? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to theologians. Phiwum 00:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen him referred to as a theologian, by anybody! Looking at our "rivals", the other encyclopedias, I see that they invariably call him "a writer" (Britannica), a "US science fiction writer" (Hutchinson's), an "American science-fiction writer" (Oxford Dictionary of English), and so on. None of them call him a philosopher. -- ChrisO 00:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely "religious leader" would be acceptable? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 12:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why this sudden urge to attach nouns? Why not just say "Hubbard founded and led Dianetics and Scientology"; then those who believe Dianetics is a philosophy will conclude Hubbard was a philosopher and those who believe Scientology is a religion will conclude Hubbard was a religious leader? -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We shouldn't get too hung up on the "is of identity". If we say what Hubbard did then we can allow the reader to conclude what kind of person he was -- a philosopher, a writer, a con-artist, a religious leader, an occultist, whatever. --FOo 01:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rehash of Ayn Rand

This seems to be a rehash of the same argument that has been had over Ayn Rand. Rand is not considered by academic philosophers to have done anything resembling competent work in their discipline. However, she did write about many of the same topics that are dealt with in philosophy, such as ontology, epistemology, and ethics. Thus the controversy.

The same can be said for many popular writers in the "New Age" genre, such as Richard Bach (Jonathan Livingston Seagull) or James Redfield (The Celestine Prophecy). Their work is not considered to be philosophy in the sense of the academic discipline, even though they do deal with issues of metaphysics or ethics.

The underlying issue is that philosophy is the name of an academic discipline as well as a subject matter. Philosophy does not amount merely to having and stating opinions on philosophical matters; it requires engaging with the practice of philosophy -- just as being a biologist doesn't merely mean having opinions about plants and animals, but actually going out and doing research. --FOo 08:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I would not mind calling Rand a philosopher. She's just not a very good philosopher, but what she writes is much closer to philosophy than what I've seen from Hubbard. Phiwum 10:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are edge cases; neither hot nor cold... which, along with Richard Bach, alludes to another edge case.

What is the difference between philosophy and religion? To what extent does one include or exclude the other. And from that standpoint, is he a philosopher, or not? Abb3w 04:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions this Board, which Hubbard set up - is there a list somewhere of who served on it, and isn't that worth mentioning? I believe LRH split with all of them and tried to have some of them done down in various ways. That would also surely be worth a mention. MarkThomas 12:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The various Dianetics corporations that Hubbard created with partners that crashed and burned could use more detail either here or in the Dianetics article, but digging up adequate sources for events over 50 years ago is work, especially when some of them seemed to exist for only a few weeks. Certainly things like Hubbard's arrest in Philadelphia (1952), and the loss of control of the Dianetics materials for a time during legal battles with Don Purcell over the Wichita Foundation are notable. AndroidCat 13:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When a drug has secondary effects like acting as an antihistamine but is also psychoactive doctors tend to prescribe it in cases where the patient can't take regular antihistamines. Otherwise a doctor could prescribe cannabis as an anti-emetic, when there are much better options for just treating vomiting than cannabis. (I understand in cancer patients cannabis is used to stop vomiting AND increase appetite, I'm talking about prescribing cannabis for someone who could just as easily be treated with a dose of over the counter Emetrol.) Anynobody 05:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were several inaccuracies in the description of Hubbard's Cape Lookout "battle". For example, when citing the presence of a magnetic deposit in the area he was not saying that the PC-815 was tracking it. The PC-815 had SONAR which does not record magnetic anomalies, the blimps were the ones using magnetic anomaly detectors. Along with these changes I have provided references in the form of Hubbard's battle report, Fletcher's summary, and an ASW-1 form showing what Fletcher wanted from Hubbard instead of his 18 page report. The report is the successful destruction of a Nazi uboat. Anynobody 06:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Navy didn't try to promote Hubbard

During peacetime, the military does not "offer" promotion. In 1947 there was no war going on, and candidates for promotion had to go through a testing process. Anynobody 00:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Owen mentions that the actual promotion was running through the system since October 3, 1945, here [12] under Afterlife, but doesn't mention the document that shows this. At any rate, Hubbard certainly didn't "refuse" the promotion because (assuming this can be sourced), it was never delivered and signed for. AndroidCat 02:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry about that. You're right he didn't refuse it, but the Navy didn't offer it either. The only times rank is "offered" is when a the military is trying to recruit personnel with important skills (usually in, war) for example a doctor or perhaps an intelligence offer with special language abilities. Or when a soldier is spot promoted by a flag officer (General or Admiral), but it may not be an offer so much as an order.

Seriously, promotions don't just get forgotten especially in the case of an officer such as a prospective Lieutenant Commander. Anynobody 02:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

I reverted this section from the version here to this version. The reasons why in a nutshell are that first of all, it's too much detail being spent in one area. Second, the referencing is questionable -- I thought I had found an orphaned reference, a reference which depended on the reference being defined in a previous usage, a previous usage that had been removed, but it turns out that no, that reference wasn't ever defined. Third, some of the material is dubious in terms of asking the reader to draw inferences (such as referencing a correctly-filled ASW-1 form in order to support the contention that Hubbard's was filled out incorrectly.)

Needless to say, I also oppose the recent efforts([13], [14]) to provide an "appropriate intro" to this section -- "appropriate intro" being I guess some kind of code phrase for "cherry-picked statements placed together to form a supposed 'summary' absolutely unrepresentative of the whole." -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is just flim-flam designed to make LRH's sad little "military career" sound more noble, although the line ""There is no record of any court-martial or other disciplinary action during former Lieutenant Hubbard's military service." is hardly a ringing endorsement! Very defensive. MarkThomas 16:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, cherries, how many of those have I seen picked by others - I am surprised there are any left for me (smile). There is a better intro there now. The point, as I covered with Anynobody here, is that Hubbard joined, served, was honorable discharged. That is the overview of his military service and that should form the intro. Add to that there are black marks on his record (but not black enough for formal disciplinary action so what does that say); black marks that have been played and overplayed by critics. A mention perhaps of accusations of misrepresenting his naval career (unless already overplayed in the article) and there you have an intro. --Justanother 16:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the "several" campaign medals, which number exactly four. Well, let's see, there's the "American Defense Service Medal", which will be "will be awarded to all persons in the naval service who served on active duty at any time between 8 September 1939 and 7 December 1941, both dates inclusive."[15] There's the "American Campaign Medal", which could be awarded "for service within the American Theater between 7 December 1941 and 2 March 1946 " for being "Permanently assigned as a member of a crew of a vessel sailing ocean waters for a period of 30 days or 60 nonconsecutive days." The "Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal", for which "members serving in the geographical area between Dec. 7, 1941, and March 2, 1946 (dates inclusive) are authorized award of the medal."[16] And finally the "World War II Victory Medal", which "may be awarded to all members of the Armed Forces of the United States or of the Government of the Philippine Islands who served on active duty in World War II at any time between 7 December 1941 and 31 December 1946, both dates inclusive." Why yes, these "several" campaign medals, which only show that someone served in a particular theatre of operations in a particular time period, tell us so much about Hubbard the military man. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the most relevant overview of his military career is as I had it in the last intro be Mark reverted again. He served, he was honorable discharged, he had some black marks, he PR'ed his service, critics PR'ed his black marks. What you would have is: He signed up, he was really really bad, he PR'ed his service. "Your" version is POV, mine is not. --Justanother 17:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what I would have for this specific section is no intro at all. It's not long enough to merit its own summarizing intro and I haven't seen anything that convinces me it should get that long; I think that we should simply provide the facts and the references, and let the reader draw their own conclusions. By the way, does "falsely claiming to have over 500% as many medals as you actually have" fall under the heading of "PR'ing"? Because I would have classified it as "lying", really. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not read more into my remark than is there. "Your" version is "your" version of the section. The one you defend. That makes it "yours". One-sided. No mention of his honorable discharge; an important component of his "Military career", would you not say? No mention that he never had formal disciplinary action; important also as your version plays up all his peccadillos. PR'ing is a euphemism for the activities of both sides. Call it what you will. --Justanother 19:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So "PR'ing" is a way to falsely equate "telling the truth about a war record distinguished primarily by its blemishes" and "telling huge lies about medals that were never earned and going so far as to distribute forged documents to support the lie"? What a versatile word that is! "No mention of his honorable discharge; an important component of his "Military career", would you not say?" No, I would not say, because it's what most soldiers get. Same thing with never being court-martialed and never facing formal disciplinary action. Same thing with getting those four campaign medals awarded simply for serving in the right place at the right time. Not everyone who serves in the military, however, wastes materiel and manpower fighting imaginary submarine battles. Not everyone who serves in the military shells allied territories. Not everyone who serves in the military later falsifies the number of their medals by over 500%. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<< Beg to differ, Antaeus. Waste and mistakes are the hallmarks of war. Just not every officer that possibly made a mistake or wasted some time and materiel is hauled over the coals by silly critics for it. Silly critics that care little for what they criticize, including a young officer with exemplary referrals (have you looked at those referrals) that served his country in time of war. That may or may not have chased a sub. That may have made an error in where he chose to practice gunnery at a floating target. BFD. And did he PR himself after? Looks that way, don't it. BFD. OK, if you want to tear into him, have the common decency to mention the simple truths too. "Not everyone" gets your "special treatment" so let's be sure to mention that he got what most soldiers got, too. Unfortunately, if critics have their way, "common" decency is most uncommon indeed. --Justanother 20:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, and the pathetically distorted and exaggerated LRH "submarine warfare off Oregon" story is characteristic of the man; some moderate achievements typical of a marginally-above average person and a massive fantasising complex, both self-deceiving and deceptive, fabricating all sorts of wacky stories about self and others. On this unsafe ground was Scientology built. MarkThomas 20:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<< Ever read the Moulton testimony? I suggest you do. Hubbard, his crew, another ship, blimps. All making positive contact; sonar (not magnetic) and magnetic, hearing screws, seeing periscopes, diesel slicks. And what was that disallowed bit about a shore observer? Golly, maybe there was a sub chase. And what do we have to counter all that evidence that the chase actually occurred?? A CYA (Cover Your Ass) from some pissed-off higher-up?? Well, that is enough for us to smear the man and his crew and everyone else involved. Silly critics. --Justanother 21:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that this talk page is for improving the article, Justanother. If you would like to discuss your theory that the testimony of Hubbard's second-in-command doesn't just count as "evidence" but as unquestionable evidence which proves that anyone not convinced by that "evidence" must be "some pissed-off higher-up" trying to "CYA", well then you might want to get yourself a blog. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please to not edit-war. Instead help me make an appropriate intro, if you care to. I think I have addressed your concerns. --Justanother 16:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, MarkThomas! Sorry, I am slow this morning - you are the POV-pusher with the trollish bits over at Xenu. Your edit-warring is unwelcome and will not stand. --Justanother 17:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As in Talk:Xenu#Civil airliner in space and your edits to the article. --Justanother 17:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antaeus Feldspar I can understand if perhaps the section on his Navy career was too long, however I would have preferred you merely trim it down rather than replace it with what was there before as it includes inaccurate information. For example: US Navy concluded Hubbard's vessel had in fact been attacking a "known magnetic deposit" on the seabed. Hubbard had no way to detect a magnetic deposit, his ship used SONAR to find submarines. Sonar depends on sound. The blimps that responded, were the units that detected a magnetic contact.

The entire addition I made was sourced, including Hubbard's own report. Again, I don't mind the section being trimmed down but do not agree with it's removal as it was sourced better than the current version.

As a compromise I'll put the section back as I finished it, then why don't you or another editor trim it down to the appropriate length? Anynobody 22:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an expert in sonar and submarine warfare Anynobody? Is it your argument that you know more at this historical remove than the naval experts at the time who examined Hubbard's claims? MarkThomas 22:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MarkThomas the people who wrote the description of Hubbard's battle with a magnetic deposit were not naval experts. I know quite a bit about the subject of ASW, but it's not my knowledge I'm using as references. I've tried to make it as accessible to a layperson as possible, by linking to articles on the difference between a Magnetic Anomaly Detector and SONAR.

The magnetic deposit story was written by people looking to trash Hubbard at any cost and misinterpreted Admiral Fletcher's comments. How could he possibly be attacking a magnetic deposit he couldn't detect? Anynobody 22:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, as I explained earlier, is not merely that the section was too long, it was that the referencing was very iffy (I see that you went right back and readded the reference "<ref name="logbook" />" despite no reference named "logbook" ever being defined) and the material appearing to border on original research (the aforementioned inclusion of an unrelated ASW-1; the statement "This also implied that Lt. Hubbard and his crew were operating the ship's SONAR equipment incorrectly"). I am disappointed that rather than examine the material with an eye towards fixing these problems which were pointed out, you simply reinserted it exactly the same as it had been before with the exception of one link. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point about a statement like "This also implied that Lt. Hubbard and his crew were operating the ship's SONAR equipment incorrectly", which is why I say to par it down. The "<ref name="logbook" />" must have come in from USS PC-815 as it wasn't one of mine. Was it there before? I take that back, that was my error. I hadn't inetended to copy that ref too.

• The article implies that Fletcher was saying Hubbard incompetently did battle with a magnetic deposit, I included the letter as a reference of what he actually said.

In that letter Fletcher points out that Hubbard didn't submit a proper report, the ASW-1 form is what he referenced and that is the form I've included for a reader to see for themselves.

I've also included Hubbard's report in case they (readers) want to see what was submitted.

Towards proving that Fletcher WAS NOT saying Hubbard thought he was fighting a magnetic deposit I included a link to an ibiblio page explaining MAD vs SONAR as well as Hubbard's words explaining that THE BLIMPS were tracking a magnetic submarine contact.

By including the actual sources like Fletcher's letter, the ASW-1, and Hubbard's report the reader can form their own opinions.

If that is WP:OR, please explain how interpreting Admiral Fletcher's comments to mean Hubbard did battle with a magnetic deposit with the previous references ISN'T WP:OR too? Anynobody 03:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC) I take that back, it's not WP:OR because someone else made that assertion. However WP:OR isn't what it used to be either. These primary sources all meet WP:ATT guideline which states:[reply]

Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.

Primary sources are documents or people close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident, and the White House's summary of a president's speech are primary sources. Primary source material that has been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of attribution in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse primary sources. The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47) for his followers, because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted. Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.

However since these primary source documents can be read with a couple of definitions of terms, I think they are appropriate. The information necessary to understand is not specialist knowledge, but it isn't mainstream either. Specialist knowledge would be expecting a reader to understand detailed, complicated information beyond the definition of some terms and acronyms. For example, some of the specific topics Lt. Hubbard might have missed while sleeping can be found in a book here Naval Sonar which mentions topics like:

1. BASIC PRINCIPLES OF UNDERWATER SOUND

2. TRANSMISSION OF SOUND IN SEA WATER 3. SOUND RECEPTION AND DETECTION BY LISTENING 4. ESSENTIALS OF ECHO-RANGING EQUIPMENT 5. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF SONAR SYSTEMS 6. SURFACE-SHIP ECHO-RANGING EQUIPMENT 7. SONAR RECEIVERS 8. SONAR TRANSMITTERS

9. STABILIZATION

There are 17 chapters total, and I want to stress that a lay person need not know any of these things to understand that several other ships couldn't hear anything and the blimps were tracking a deposit of metal, perhaps an old wreck, or ore deposit. Or that Hubbard took 18 pages to describe a lot of nothing in an unprofessional and incorrect way (the ASW-1 form). Again one need not understand the data on the form to see that his report includes almost none of it. Anynobody 07:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to allegation of flim-flam designed ... "military career" sound more noble,"

MarkThomas I'm NOT trying to make his career seem more noble. As you have pointed out the CoS has been putting out inaccurate information for a long time regarding this, the anti-COS people have made similar but smaller and more innocent mistakes. If you are trying to prove Hubbard was an incompetent officer, the truth really suits your case better. If Hubbard could've detected the "magnetic deposit" it would actually make him look like an inexperienced rather than incompetent captain.

Instead the truth is he mentioned how much "sleep he caught up on" in ASW school, where they would have given him training on SONAR. If he hadn't slept through the class, he might have realized he wasn't detecting an enemy sub. He talks about his experienced and skilled crew in his report, then the following month the crew was too green to return to base without him at the conn (and he was too tired to do it)? Looking at this quote from above "Exactly, and the pathetically distorted and exaggerated LRH "submarine warfare off Oregon" story is characteristic of the man..." the behavior I'm describing and citing backs you up. Anynobody 03:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing on his command of PC-815

Submarine Warfare You don't have to take my word for this. The Japanese didn't operate their submarines the same way as the Nazis operated their uboats, trolling for merchant vessels. I'm not saying there was never an IJN sub off the West Coast, because there was at least one. Those times were very few and far between because the IJN didn't believe in attacking shipping or industrial targets. The Nazis did though, and because of that the Allies had to run shipping in the Atlantic by convoys. The Japanese didn't bother attacking, so in the Pacific our merchants just sailed by themselves. The sub commanders were ordered to attack large warships first, like the USS Wasp (CV-7) or the USS Indianapolis (CA-35). The point being that area was not regularly patrolled by enemy subs, so on the occasions when one was there it was on special orders.

So he was not taking away valuable patrol resources and allowing a sub to slip through a gap caused by the other ships searching for his contact. I'm also not saying he was doing this in bad faith, he really was trying to do his job. That is the one thing his commanders all said about him is that he was genuinely trying to do the right thing as he saw it. This incident is very similar in nature to what happened earlier on the East Coast during his assignment as the prospective C.O. of USS YP-422, and earlier still in Australia. Down under he convinced himself and somebody in an Army unit that he was some kind of liaison for the Navy when no such orders existed. In Boston he was most likely telling the officers in charge of converting the ships how to do their jobs, and was relieved after complaining that said officers weren't listening to him after being ordered not to.

The point is he wasn't stupid, he just had a really high opinion of himself and as such wasn't fit to be in charge of a ship. He could have been valuable as a part of a larger unit though. To those who feel he is being unduly portrayed, would a sentence explaining that he was doing what he thought best serve to counterbalance the POV issues at all? Anynobody 08:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section added by 194.57.219.129 has no references in the proper format, uses other Wiki articles as references, reads like someone's personal essay writing and has serious POV problems. "The pathetic end of life of Ron Hubbard, the numerous injection marks on his body and the drugs found in his corpse seem to strengthen the sad picture painted by the testimonies above." While I would welcome a section on Hubbard's drug use, I think that there are too many problems with it right now to let it stay before a massive cleanup. AndroidCat 22:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds pretty similar to the accounts I recall reading in Sunday supplements. I agree there are style problems but the bulk of the text seems pretty accurate to me. MarkThomas 22:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am so outnumbered here, I think I should get a handicap, like in horse racing or golf. I propose that I get 6RR. I mean, that will level the field just a tad. What do you'all think? --Justanother 17:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't Miscavige just allocate a "hit-team" to WP. That would sort you out. Or is it that you know in advance you wouldn't stand a chance. Scientology has 75,000 sad adherants and WP a few million. Oh dear. MarkThomas 17:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give him a call and ask him. Fact is that it would only take about 10 - 15 Scientologists that knew what they were doing here to totally clean up the articles here. By clean up I mean remove the soapboxing while leaving a legitimate exposition of criticism of Scientology and adding a ton of truth about Scientology. I do what little I can but I am the only one here that fits that description at this time. Clueless POV-pushers abound, though. Luckily most editors here, including critics of Scientology, can see clueless POV-pushers for what they are. --Justanother 17:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Justanother, were you under the impression that this is some sort of game? Please leave the games elsewhere. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lighten up, Antaeus. Life is a game. More fun that way. --Justanother 17:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and call Miscavige. Do you seriously think that the powers-that-be in Wikipedia would allow Miscavige's nonnies to trample and win? Or isn't it the case that in fact you would have to withdraw from your bullying "clean-up" with egg all over your sorry little faces? Probably John Travolta would have to issue a public apology. Not that I speak for Wikipedia - just speculating. Interesting though to see the way your mind is really working - "clean-up", "legitimate exposition" - I think we all know what those terms mean in sinister Scieno-speak!! MarkThomas 17:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sinister Scieno-speak only exists in your imagination. Like much of your criticism, I would wager. --Justanother 18:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The real problem is that there is almost no public interest in learning about Scientology. Hence, the lack of studies or serious news reports about it. The only people interested in working on the Scientology series WP articles, now 244 in number, are "critics", a few Scientologists who are trying to defend their group and some who are trying to promote it, and me, who has another agenda. I commented to WPean who was a member of Transcendental Meditation that it would take until 2 or 3 generations grew up in his group before there was any serious intellectual interest in it, as has happened with the Mormons. Steve Dufour 04:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam?

I realize you feel outnumbered, and though I can't offer you a handicap I can offer you a chance to discuss why this: L Ron Hubbard's own words illustrating the Xenu Space Opera Story is not really spam. I agree it does not belong where it was near the top, but it seems no worse than the other sites listed under the Independent section and it does deal with the subject at hand and has some primary sources (like some of his lectures). I know you wouldn't endorse the site personally but as long as it's listed with similar sites people will know what the point it's trying to make is.

I haven't looked at it thoroughly though, so if the same info can be found on xenu.net it could be worth removing for being superfluous. Anynobody 05:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is spam because the guy is spamming it in multiple articles. Anynobody, do you know what a WP:RS is?? Please review the policy if you have a question. Do you think that this project should include non-RS materials just for the hell of it? Sorry to be a bit blunt just it strikes me as odd that you think that an encyclopedia would endorse such a site. And inclusion is endorsement, no matter how you label it. Websites like that are little more than graffiti on the information superhighway. --Justanother 06:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought the website is more about Scientology than Hubbard, but on the subject of WP:RS I noticed that the site has a link to The Bridge which xenu.net does not. Would you still consider the site to be spam as a reference to the movie? I'm not saying the movie should be added here or under Scientology but if the site contains files which are RS like movies or documents that can be verified why should they be off limits? Anynobody 06:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say the site was spam, I said it was being spammed. The site is non-RS, highly POV, inappropriate for this project. Anynobody, please just read the same refs that I read; WP:RS (WP:ATT and the FAQ for it), WP:EL, WP:NPOV. That is really all I have to say; read the policies. Thanks. --Justanother 06:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you, that I have read them. In fact WP:ATT and what is says about primary sources is what inspired me to edit here. Did I misunderstand your edit summary?: 05:21, 4 April 2007 Justanother (Talk | contribs) (rv SPA spammer). I thought the info left by a spammer was spam, and you then said: :I did not say the site was spam... I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but if it wasn't spam what was it and why aren't files from it that can be verified as accurate not RS? Anynobody 07:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it adds anything that xenu.net doesn't already cover. And Justanother is right to point out that the site has been spammed on Wikipedia in the past - I recall this coming up before. -- ChrisO 08:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that it doesn't belong in this article, (see above: on second thought the website is more about Scientology than Hubbard). Hypothetically, if a spam site has files which themselves stand up to verification are they usable? Anynobody 08:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The suggested format for a lead paragraph can and should include discussion regarding crticism of the article's subject. It also points out that a good lead should include references to each sections discussed.

WP:LEAD#Writing about concepts When writing a lead section about ideas and concepts (such as "truth"), it can be helpful to introduce the topic as follows:

1. Context - describing the category or field in which the idea belongs.
2. Characterization - what the term refers to as used in the given context.
3. Explanation - deeper meaning and background.
4. Compare and contrast - how it relates to other topics, if appropriate.
5. Criticism - include criticism if there has been significant, notable criticism.

WP:LEAD#Suggestions The lead section should concisely reflect the content of the article as a whole. For many articles, these suggestions can be helpful in writing an appropriate lead:

• In the lead try to have a sentence, clause, or at least a word devoted to each of the main headlines in the article.
• The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article.
• A significant argument not mentioned after the lead should not be mentioned in the lead.
• Avoid lengthy, detailed paragraphs.

I don't see any reason why we can't come to an agreement about this issue and get that tag removed. Anynobody 22:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD says that an article greater than 30,000 characters is very large.

My word processor counted: 37,889 with no spaces. 44,965 with. I copied and pasted all sections from the article page except the lead, the TOC, references, and links/categories. It also counted characters that shouldn't count like [edit] and reference numbers. Even deducting those this article is well above 30,000 making 3,4, or even maybe 5 paragraphs appropriate.

Would it be inappropriate to split this article up? It was proposed at Sylvia Browne to make a subpage dedicated to her controversial biographical aspects and criticism, and it seems to have worked well. I've noticed that like her, there seems to be a dispute about more or less every aspect of Hubbard's life. Anynobody 23:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I have to say for the opening paragraph as it is now is that it makes you want to read on. :-) Steve Dufour 04:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree with you Steve Dufour, it's important to keep the text readable. That is the ultimate challenge of course but in a contest between interest and information I think information should win. The point I'm trying to make by noting the number of characters is that we don't have to cram everything into one or two paragraphs. I think the one thing anyone can agree about him is that he had a very complicated life. The intro I wrote was designed to be a starting off point, but we should mention each section in the lead. (Not each subsection though, for example his military career should be mentioned but details about the subsections would be too much.) Anynobody 05:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justanother I did my best to portray the founding of the Sea Org and RPF as accuratly and neutrally as possible. The RPF shouldn't be mentioned but the Sea Org does need to be, how would you describe the circumstances under which it was founded?(I could've sworn that the RPF was in there at one point, but since it's not now it shouldn't be mentioned) To keep as close to the article as possible I just termed the trouble legal difficulties and tried to give it a truthful but optimistic version of it's creation without mentioning the more unusual aspects like the billion year contract or even the uniforms.

I propose a goal of one to three paragraphs mentioning these subjects which are for the most part in there already, I've rephrased and re-ordered some of the writing career specifics as a propsal:

1. Early life
2. Education
3. Pre-Dianetics writing - he wrote for both pulp and science fiction magazines, making him a writer (it's just easier that way)
4. Military career
5. Dianetics
6. Scientology
7. Legal difficulties and life on the high seas
8. Post-Dianetics writing career
9. Later life
10. Controversial episodes - keep this until after his death
11. Hubbard in popular culture - since the pop culture references are usually allusions to one of the Controversial episodes this should follow it.

The problem is that the lead section is clunky, if you read it out loud the opening sentence sounds like a first grader telling his/her mother about somebody. I mean no offense to whoever wrote it because they seem to be trying to compromise on tone by being specific. Listing two different genres he wrote in is superfluous without listing them all, as they weren't the only types of writing he did. Anynobody 09:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't see anything wrong with the lead paragraphs. Yes, it's general. That's what an intro is supposed to be -- it's supposed to be a general overview, with the details saved for the article. We don't need to list every single genre he wrote in; we don't need to list every single component of the Church of Scientology that he founded. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have agreed with you a couple of days ago, but when I got here I noticed {{Lead section|date=January 2007}}. Since somebody had a problem with it, I refreshed my understanding of WP:LEAD. I listed the suggestions from it above. It also states:

The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any.

The lead section here now could not stand by itself. You're right that we don't need to list all the genres he wrote in, which is why the opening sentence should just say he was a writer. I think the lead needs expanding but it doesn't need to be so specific. This is also why I didn't include the subsections in the list of things it should mention above.

Essentially, according to WP:LEAD, the lead should be a mini version of the article as a whole. Since it is a guideline we can ignore it, and if that's the consensus I'll stop mentioning it. Anynobody 01:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI that tag has been there since:

  20:35, 8 November 2006 CloudNine (Talk | contribs) m (Lead section is too short for an article of this length)

  Anynobody 01:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All Wikipedia guidelines and policies are shaped by observing where they produce satisfactory results and where they produce unsatisfactory results. I'll note that many of the suggestions given in WP:LEAD#Suggestions seem to be excellent suggestions for articles about ideas, happenings, and constructs, but much less suited to, say, biographical articles and geographical articles. Suppose, for instance, we have someone who's unquestionably notable, but only for one particular action they took (Lee Harvey Oswald, for example.) The full article should of course be an overview of their whole life; the lead should of course identify what they're notable for. But if we adhere strictly to the suggestion that "In the lead try to have a sentence, clause, or at least a word devoted to each of the main headlines in the article" then we're basically cluttering up a clean lead which tells what the person is notable for with everything they aren't notable for. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Harvey Oswald was actually a bad example to cite as a good lead, because it doesn't mention he was a qualified USMC sharpshooter which is pretty relevant when discussing a man who is notable for what he is.

I get the impression you think that I want to include the whole article, I do not. However I think as mmany major sections should be mentioned as possible and some of the text reworded:

Lafayette Ronald Hubbard (13 March 1911 – 24 January 1986), better known as L. Ron Hubbard, was primarily known as an American freelance writer ^[5][6][7]and founder of the Church of Scientology based on the ideas put forth in his book Dianetics. He was also an officer in the United States Navy during the Second World War and would go on to command a fleet of private Scientology vessels after later legal difficulties in the U.S. dictated his temporary relocation. Hubbard used the opportunity to form an elite group within Scientology he called the Sea Org. He continued writing and expanding the concepts on which he founded the Church until his January 24, 1986 death at a private California ranch. Hubbard was a controversial public figure, with many details of his life disputed.

The Church of Scientology official biographies present Hubbard as "larger than life, attracted to people, liked by people, dynamic, charismatic and immensely capable in a dozen fields".^[8] However, the Church's account of Hubbard's life has changed over time, with editions of the biographical account published over the years differing from each other.^[9]

In contrast, biographies of Hubbard by independent journalists and accounts by former Scientologists paint a much less flattering, and often highly critical, picture of Hubbard and in many cases contradict the material presented by the Church.^[10][11][5]

This is closer to what I'd like to see. Calling him a writer instead of a Pulp fiction and Science fiction magazine writer, dedicating one paragraph to praise and the last for criticism. Anynobody 06:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my take on a lead. The last line I removed can go to the second paragraph. I think mine is more concise, more NPOV, and better represents the balance of the man's life.

Lafayette Ronald Hubbard (13 March 1911 – 24 January 1986), better known as L. Ron Hubbard, was a well-known American author of the pre-World War II pulp fiction era that went on to write the immensely popular self-help book Dianetics in 1950 and to found of the Church of Scientology in 1953. He served as an officer in the United States Navy during World War II and later commanded a small fleet of private Scientology vessels manned by his Sea Org, a group that became the management structure of the present-day Church. He continued writing and expanding the concepts on which he founded the Church until his January 24, 1986 death at a private California ranch.

Please tell me what you think. --Justanother 13:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it reads fluent and is an appropriate (for a encyclopedia article) introduction. COFS 18:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely a major improvement and does read much better. The article mentions his life at sea and the Sea Org as happening around a time of "legal difficulties". The section is called Legal difficulties and life on the high seas. I mentioned the Sea Org as a positive byproduct of the situation he was in. Phrase it however you like, call it a legal controversy or disagreement, but it should be mentioned that he went to sea as sort of a get away from some difficulty. (That is what the article says.)

Without mentioning the Sea Org it sounds like he was just running away to live at sea. If the Sea Org is mentioned and the reason for leaving is not, it suggests that he went to form the org and for no other reason. Again, I think it is a big step in the right direction but to be complete should look something like this:

He was an avid seaman and served as an officer in the United States Navy during World War II. Later he commanded a small fleet of private Scientology vessels during a particularly controversial period in his life. At that time he created the Sea Org, which started as simply the crews who manned the vessels but has since evolved into the management structure of the present-day Church.

I'm not saying that we need to fill the lead with negative information but in order to truly be NPOV the critics must be addressed too. Anynobody 01:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the acknowedgement. All due respect, AN, but I feel that, of the few words of that intro paragraph, you want to make too many about the sea. Most of them should be about Scientology as that, with Dianetics, consumed at least 36 years of his life. Compare that to, what? four years in the active Navy. Scientology took up the vast portion of his life and directly and importantly affected hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. You need to get a sense of perspective on this man. The Navy is trivial. The years at sea with the SO, less so but still minor. The barest mention that he served in the Navy is appropriate. I am not even sure that the SO years at sea belongs in the lead. It probably does not.

Lafayette Ronald Hubbard (13 March 1911 – 24 January 1986), better known as L. Ron Hubbard, was a well-known American author of the pre-World War II Golden Age of pulp fiction. He served as an officer in the United States Navy during World War II and afterwards, in 1950, wrote the immensely popular self-help book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. In 1953, Hubbard founded of the Church of Scientology to forward his work on Scientology, an outgrowth of Dianetics. He continued researching and expanding the concepts of Dianetics and Scientology and setting policy for the growing Church of Scientology until his January 24, 1986 death at a private California ranch.

I think that is better. Controversy can go in the next paragraph as it interrupts the flow of the first and the back and forth makes things choppy and awkward. --Justanother 02:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justanother you really appear to be trying to put your bias aside, but by not mentioning any criticism or controversy it creates a unbalance in his favor. Respectfully, most people don't see him the same way as Scientologists do. Life on the sea aside, the way I envisioned keeping the three paragraphs NPOV was like this:

• Paragraph 1: General overview including one point about how Scientologists see him and another about the criticism. (1 Pro 1 Con)
• Paragraph 2: Scientologists points about him slightly expanded. (Pro)
• Paragraph 3: The critics points about him slightly expanded. (Con)
• Result NPOV, equal number of points.

Your intro's make the balance look more like this:

• Paragraph 1: (Pro)
• Paragraph 2: (Pro)
• Paragraph 3: (Con)
• Result Pro-Scientology POV, more pro than con points.

WP:NPOV is about a balance between the various POVs. Anynobody 02:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In actual fact, I do not edit from my "bias" except to the degree that I am biased for truth in these articles. Never been any other way for me. Nor do I see you as a biased editor. What you may not realize, AN, is just how highly Hubbard is regarded among non-Scientologists. That is likely because your sole exposure to Hubbard is in the poisoned atmosphere of internet criticism of him. Do me a favor, AN, put any preconceived notions that you might have about the man to the side for a moment and read through this site: http://www.lronhubbardtribute.org/iv/accolades/index.htm Pretend that all the people quoted there actually said all those things (they did of course, but critics like to pretend that Scientology sites would lie about something like that). --Justanother 03:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• About the website you mentioned:

I'm sure there are some non-Scientologists who see Hubbard in a relatively positive way, however it's difficult for me to believe what is on the site you've pointed out because it doesn't mention a context for the people's comments, or when they said it. As an example, the site claims to be current as of 2006 and cites: James Barnes Safety Officer Rocketdyne Division Rockwell Aerospace Boeing bought Rockwell Aerospace in 1996. Do you have any references to any of these people directly? It goes back to the conversation we had on your talk page a while ago, the key is to find a source that has no interest in either trashing or worshiping him (like the Navy).

• About general POV of Hubbard

Acknowledging that some non-Cos people think of him in a positive way, you must also acknowledge that many people think of him in a negative way. We are supposed to write in a balanced way, that means not just talk about his positive traits OR his negative but rather to strike a balance. This is the only problem I have with your suggestions, they make no mention of the opposing view and only concentrates on how Scientology sees him. Anynobody 04:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re the site. AN when a person does not assume good faith on the part of another when they have no reason to do otherwise, they are showing their bias. Do you have any real reason (other than the general "CoS is bad" that critics spew), any reason to think that the CoS would misquote a public person's words on that site? Such misquoting being the ultimate foot-bullet if they were ever called on it. You are hemming and hawing with this "relatively positive way" or "doesn't mention a context for the people's comments, or when they said it". Those comments re not "relative" and most of them stand without context and are timeless (the man has been dead for 20 years, I doubt that he will get in much more trouble). I thought you had no bias but I may be wrong because while your 2nd paragraph shows NPOV, your first does not. --Justanother 12:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justanother welcome back from your hiatus. I mean no insult when I say this but, yes indeed I do have reason to question the information presented by pro-Scientology sources. You have to remember that these are the same sources that have in the past published documents like this:

Even you, I guess unconsciously, are misrepresenting the facts on this very talk page.

<< Ever read the Moulton testimony? I suggest you do. Hubbard, his crew, another ship, blimps. All making positive contact; sonar (not magnetic) and magnetic, hearing screws, seeing periscopes, diesel slicks. And what was that disallowed bit about a shore observer? Golly, maybe there was a sub chase. And what do we have to counter all that evidence that the chase actually occurred?? A CYA (Cover Your Ass) from some pissed-off higher-up?? Well, that is enough for us to smear the man and his crew and everyone else involved. Silly critics. --Justanother 21:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If you bother to read Hubbard's report the only real help he got was from the SC which didn't have SONAR until their CO returned. That was the boat he was signaling with the whistle to drop depth charges after he ran out, none of the other ships wanted to engage or drop depth charges. Not because they thought he was right, but because they didn't hear anything (that wasn't in Hubbard's report, but it's what the others reported to Admiral Fletcher). Only the blimps had any kind of contact, and that was the "magnetic deposit".

I have read the Moulton Testimony, it shows that L Ron Hubbard was able to impress his friend and first officer, along with 60 or so men into thinking he knew what he was doing. Incidentally he would later blame most of the same men (minus Moulton who went on to get his own ship) for his having to anchor of the Eastern Coronado a month later for being too incompetent to return to base without him at the conn.

Here's the real document:

. Anynobody 09:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above said, I do agree with your idea that my original version, while NPOV-ish, is somewhat one-sided. As I respect the man for what he accomplished and tend to forgive his peccadillos, it is difficult for me to "write for the enemy" in this instance. However a line with the notable and overarching criticism of Hubbard and his creation (Scientology) is not inappropriate in the lead paragraph. Why don't some of you guys go ahead and add that to my draft and we can go from there. What you, AN (since you are the only one with the problem), should understand is that, in some cases, while my POV would prevent me from creating something, my adherence to NPOV requires that I respect the POV of others. That is an important point for you to understand, AN, because it may be the point that throws you about me. My POV affects those bits I create, from scratch as it were (I don't have to write for the enemy if I don't care to), and other editors should review my work, as I review the work of other editors. My POV does not affect how I treat the creations of others because I evaluate them against the policies of Wikipedia, not against my POV (something some anti-Scientologists do also but that needs more work). What this means is that while I do not mind writing for the enemy in certain instances, like writing up Hubbard's military career, or his schooling, I am not about to write some overarching criticism of the man when I believe that he made one of the most important contributions to Man of any individual and that he dedicated his life to the effort despite the vast forces of governments and institutions that tried to shut him down. He succeeded and others are carrying on his work, that work being simply to make people happier and more able to influence their lives and the lives of others to the betterment of all. And plenty of non-Scientologists agree with that summary. And, yes, there are many that agree with the summary that he was a con-man. But, IMO, those people have mostly simply considered only superficial criticisms of the man (do we really care about his Naval career?) and the complaints of a very small number of vocal critics (a number of which edit here) and totally discount the testimony of tens of thousand of people that have been helped by Hubbard. That is just weird but that is indicative of how things work on the internet. Thanks. --Justanother 15:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ps, to AN, you are wasting your time over at User:Orsini/Sandbox3 and User talk:Orsini/Sandbox3 and it reflects badly on you and all those involved over there, for example and all the other clues people have been trying to send you to knock off your preoccupation with me, like here or, more directly, here ("Smee and Anynobody, let go of your grievance - Geogre") and here (for me it merely comes across an effort to prolong a dispute. - pgk). I can find others if you need me to. Hopefully you can take good advice and "let go". I bring this up not because I have any fear of a User RfC (actually one part of me would love you to take that RfC live) but because I really do not want to waste any more of my time and the time of others with this silly personal bickering. --Justanother 15:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the above said; here ya go:

Lafayette Ronald Hubbard (13 March 1911 – 24 January 1986), better known as L. Ron Hubbard, was a well-known American author of the pre-World War II Golden Age of pulp fiction. He served as an officer in the United States Navy during World War II and afterwards, in 1950, wrote the immensely popular self-help book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. In 1953, Hubbard founded of the Church of Scientology to forward his work on Scientology, an outgrowth of Dianetics. He continued researching and expanding the concepts of Dianetics and Scientology and setting policy for the growing Church of Scientology until his January 24, 1986 death at a private California ranch. While many people hold Hubbard in the highest esteem and have attested to the efficacy of his Dianetics and Scientology techniques, he has also been attacked as a charlatan and his Church of Scientology called a dangerous cult that practices little more than brainwashing.

How is that? My only question is should he be called a "con-man" or would charlatan or ??? be better. I think charlatan. --Justanother 16:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion is better than the last one, but some of the wording is still a bit too POV.

• well-known was he really that well known before the war?
• author of the pre-World War II Golden Age of pulp fiction makes it sound like he invented the genre.
• Immensely popular sounds like an advertisement
• attacked makes it sound like Hubbard is "right" and critics are "wrong"...we're not trying to prove either.
• It also didn't mention that he was called those things [charlatan and brainwashing) by some governments.
• Many critics accuse it of being a business rather than a religion.

Lafayette Ronald Hubbard (13 March 1911 – 24 January 1986), better known as L. Ron Hubbard, was an American author during the pre-World War II Golden Age of pulp fiction. He served as an officer in the United States Navy during World War II and afterwards, in 1950, wrote the self-help book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. Three years later, Hubbard founded the Church of Scientology, an outgrowth of Dianetics. He continued researching and expanding the concepts of Dianetics and Scientology until his January 24, 1986 death at a private California ranch. He is held high regard by Scientologists who say the efficacy of his Dianetics and Scientology techniques have helped them live better lives. Skeptics and even some nations have shown him to be a charlatan and liar by studying his claims and writing. The same people have called the Church of Scientology a cult that practices little more than brainwashing and profiteering.

Anynobody 23:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlatan is an opinion that is belied by the thousands of testimonies that Scientology works. An opinion that some have and some do not. Not shown. Of as opposed to during? Of is better prose and does not imply what you claim it does. Well-known? You better believe it and to think otherwise shows poor research on your part and simply relying on your POV to tell you. Dianetics was immensely popular and to say otherwise again shows a lack of research and relying on a POV on your part. Leave out immensely if it bothers you so much. Attacked is what he was (and is). Again, trying to change that to shown is POV on your part. Attacked is not POV, shown is. He is held in high regard by other than Scientologists, too.

Lafayette Ronald Hubbard (13 March 1911 – 24 January 1986), better known as L. Ron Hubbard, was a well-known American author of the pre-World War II Golden Age of pulp fiction. He served as an officer in the United States Navy during World War II and afterwards, in 1950, wrote the popular self-help book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. In 1953, Hubbard founded the Church of Scientology to promote an outgrowth of Dianetics that he dubbed Scientology and which he defined as an "applied religious philosophy". He continued researching and expanding the concepts of Dianetics and Scientology and setting policy for the growing Church of Scientology until his January 24, 1986 death at a private California ranch. While many people hold Hubbard in the highest esteem and have attested to the efficacy of his Dianetics and Scientology techniques, he has also been branded as a charlatan and a liar by critics.

Here ya go. There are governments, scholars, doctors, people on both sides so no need to expand, people is good enough, --Justanother 02:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've actually ignored a couple of my points, the first I notice is the point about being well known. I'm willing to believe you, but I'd need to see some kind of non-partisan proof. Like a magazine, newspaper, or something showing he was well known. If that is accurate then he either made no money from being well known, as he claimed in forms he filled out, or was lying when he filled out the forms.

Dianetics did make him a grip of money, but how do you define immensely popular? For example how many copies of Dianetics have been printed compared to the Bible or Koran?

The term "attacked" is indeed POV. If I say you are attacking my proposed lead paragraph it implies something quite different than if I say you are criticizing it.

Hubbard was a liar, he lied to several banks and committed check fraud (which is what writing a bad check essentially is).

There are other issues of course, but we can start here with the issues above. Anynobody 09:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This bit has little place in the article, certainly not where it currently sits.

1. This is an article on Hubbard; that case was a Family Court case about child custody for a regular garden-variety Scientologist.
2. It is in the "Legal difficulties" section for Hubbard but has nothing to do with his legal difficulties. You can see that it is clearly out-of-place there.
3. Sure, the judge parrots critic lines but that is all he is doing, parroting. Nothing new. All those points about Hubbard are brought up elsewhere and in more relevant circumstances like Inquiry Boards on Scientology. Latey adds nothing and is redundant.
4. Where this belongs, if anywhere, and only as a mention, is in the main Scientology article under goverment reaction in the UK.

Please take it out, it is irrelevant to this article. --Justanother 23:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, User:Misou and User:COFS. Obiter dicta. Cool. --Justanother 16:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is the sourced material backed up by citations, that was removed:

In 1984 Justice Latey, ruling^[12] in the High court of London, stated in his judgment that Scientology is "dangerous, immoral, sinister and corrupt" and "has its real objective money and power for Mr. Hubbard".^[5] Justice Latey also addressed Hubbard's representation of himself:

... he has made these, among other false claims:
That he was a much decorated war hero. He was not.
That he commanded a corvette squadron. He did not.
That he was awarded the Purple Heart, a gallantry decoration for those wounded in action. He was not wounded and was not decorated.
That he was crippled and blinded in the war and cured himself with Dianetic technique. He was not crippled and was not blinded.
That he was sent by U.S. Naval Intelligence to break up a black magic ring in California. He was not. He was himself a member of that occult group and practiced ritual sexual magic in it.
That he was a graduate of George Washington University and an atomic physicist. The facts are that he completed only one year of college and failed the one course on nuclear physics in which he enrolled.
There is no dispute about any of this. The evidence is unchallenged.^[5]<!-p. 339 -->

This material is speaking directly about the subject of this article, and is highly pertinent to the article itself and should therefore remain in the article. Smee 16:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It is redundant, he is simply parroting critical material presented to him during a non-related child custody hearing. Obiter dicta. If you want those points, just make them where they belong using RS. Not too much to ask. --Justanother 17:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obiter dicta or "useless blabber" has no place in an encyclopedic article, especially as Obiter dicta are not legally binding and not prosecutable, no matter how crazy or libelous, and thus regularly abused for defamation. Obiter dicta by nature cannot be a WP:RS. COFS 17:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a fascinating claim, that judges can somehow be assumed without any evidence to be "simply parroting" the assertions made by one side and not make any attempt to evaluate them. What nonsense. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can have your opinion and I can have mine but the fact is that the material has nothing to do with the section it is placed in and, other than that it parrots opinions presented elsewhere and in RS, little to do with this article. The actual case having nothing to do with L. Ron Hubbard. --Justanother 03:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, so suggest a section where it would be more appropriate. However, your delusion that simply by parroting the phrase "Obiter dicta! Obiter dicta!" over and over it will act like a magic spell to eliminate an RS you find troublesome is just that, delusion. You have shown no evidence whatsoever that the statements in question are obiter dicta; since the custody hinged in a major way on whether an environment so permeated with the intolerant and unethical attitudes practiced and preached by the Church of Scientology could be a fit environment in which to raise the children, for an untrained editor like yourself to carelessly yet fervently deem them obiter dicta not forming a necessary part of the judicial opinion is presumptuous and dubious indeed. COFS's statement that obiter dicta "regularly abused for defamation" seems also to be the product of a mind that has a very good idea of what would be convenient for him for the law to be, and almost no idea what the law actually is. Consider this: a journalist who examines some of the evidence from both sides of the issue -- amounts limited by whom he can actually reach for comment, and what research materials he can dig up before the news organization's deadline -- when that story goes out over the air or off to the presses, it becomes an RS. Now you are trying to argue that a judge, who has years of training in sorting out reliable evidence from unreliable evidence and sound argument from sophistry, and who has two teams each working to make sure that he is not lacking any evidence or any argument which pertains to their side of the case, and who knows well that anything in his decision which even hints that he improperly favored one side or the other can be used as grounds for an appeal of his decision -- you're trying to argue that that judge's decision is less of an RS than the journalist's story? Because you just learned two words of Latin? Poppycock. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, so suggest a section where it would be more appropriate. You have it mixed up, Antaeus. If you can place it in a proper location then do so but it has no place where it is now and its placement is disputed ergo it stays out please until we sort this out. Q.E.D. Thanks. --Justanother 02:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid it's you who are a bit mixed up on this issue. We should be trying to improve Wikipedia with our edits. If you can suggest a better section in the article for it to be moved to, that's perfectly reasonable. Removing it entirely because you think the section it's in is not the best section for it is no kind of improvement. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise proposal

I see Misou, COFS, and Justanother's point about the statement being Obiter dicta. Since it was a child custody case, Hubbard and Scientology weren't really the subject, so the stuff from Judge Latey should be excluded.

However what he said was true, and has been discussed in court cases about the CoS. Here is an example from the 1984 Armstrong trial:

[...]In addition to violating and abusing its own members civil rights, the organization over the years with its 'Fair Game' doctrine has harassed and abused those persons not in [Scientology] whom it perceives as enemies. The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder [L. Ron Hubbard]. The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background and achievements. The writings and documents in evidence additionally reflect his egoism, greed, avarice, lust for power, and vindictiveness and aggressiveness against persons perceived by him to be disloyal or hostile." -- Judge Paul G. Breckenridge, Jr., 6/20/84 (Scientology v. Armstrong, affirmed on appeal 232 Cal.App.3rd 1060, 283 Cal.Rptr. 917.)

As to Judge Latey's points about Hubbard's claims of military achievement, they can be disproven through the Navy:

That he was a much decorated war hero. He was not.

That he commanded a corvette squadron. He did not. That he was awarded the Purple Heart, a gallantry decoration for those wounded in action. He was not wounded and was not decorated. That he was crippled and blinded in the war and cured himself with Dianetic technique. He was not crippled and was not blinded.

That he was sent by U.S. Naval Intelligence to break up a black magic ring in California. He was not. He was himself a member of that occult group and practiced ritual sexual magic in it.

and this from academic records:

That he was a graduate of George Washington University and an atomic physicist. The facts are that he completed only one year of college and failed the one course on nuclear physics in which he enrolled.

As I've said, there are lots of other sources out there. When one ends up in court as much as he did there are probably other options for judicial sources. Anynobody 05:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are other sources out there, bring them on. There also have been plenty of court cases about Scientology or not even about Scientology which include Obiter Dicta totally positive about Scientology. This is not the point. The point is that the personal opinion of this judge is not relevant and the case in which this opinion was uttered is not relevant as well. Documents are. If you got some, bring them on. I got loads of them, too, just did not find the time to scan them. COFS 05:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point COFS, I understand that Obiter dicta is a judges opinion not related to the ruling. There are cases where the court has made a ruling, like Judge Paul G. Breckenridge above. (It isn't Obiter dicta if it's in the ruling). Anynobody 05:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obiter Dicta is always in the ruling, somewhere, but disrelated to the issue of the case. COFS 05:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not when it's the subject at hand, Latey had to decide on a child custody issue between relatives. Breckenridge was making a decision on whether the CoS had a case against Armstrong. In the former Scientology or Hubbard aren't the primary issue. In the later case they are. The judge didn't believe them, and explained why. That is a judgement or ruling, and when he/she gives their opinion regarding something like that it is not Obiter Dicta COFS. Anynobody 05:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IAMNOTALAWYER and apparently, AN, neither are you. Not sure if obiter dicta or ratio decidendi strictly applies. This is family court. There are no charges; it is all opinion of the judge. Example: let's say a dad has his issues and a mom has had some drinking problem but has promised to reform and is in rehab. One judge might decide that she will correct her problem and is the "better" parent while another might decide that she will not. Their statement of their opinion means nothing, only that in their opinion blah blah blah. This is just blah blah blah opinion. Antaeus floats the argument that it is really special opinion because it is from a judge. Plenty of equally intelligent "neutral" people think highly of Hubbard. The point is to not fill the article with primary source opinions. There is no need to and it invites finding and adding "counter opinions". A ridiculous exercise; let's just stick to the secondary sources here. --Justanother 11:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is what is going to happen. Dicta is additional blabber by definition, just as if the judge could not withhold some sneering comment (or enthusiastic sideline). If we decide that such things as the Latey-dicta is valid for the article - and I think it is not - I will dig out my own Dicta collection and start adding in. COFS 16:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Within the last two hours user Feldspar not only senselessly delete content on talk pages but insists to "not get it" on what an obiter dictum is. Well, you can be right, user Feldspar, but not in here. Promise. Misou 05:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feldspar, that's enough. You are going to stop vandalizing in here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misou (talk • contribs) 05:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misou, false accusations like that will get you into trouble. As anyone can verify for themmselves, there is no edit which matches Misou's inflammatory allegation of "senselessly delete content on talk pages" and as for the rest, I hardly think there is a policy anywhere on Wikipedia that says "when some editor starts spouting off legal Latin and acting as if he's actually a trained lawyer who understands the jargon he's babbling, every editor must immediately take him at face value no matter how dubious his claims are, or face consequences." -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, quite by accident I've found the edit that forms the basis for Misou's uncivil accusations, though I never would have found them if I trusted Misou's description of "within the last two hours". What he is referring to is in fact my attempt to fix his duplication of an entire page section with this edit. If I had been at my own computer at the time I could have used the tools that I prefer to use, looking for portions of the duplicated sections that were not identical so that the duplication could be removed without removing anything new. In this case I was at someone else's computer, had to make do with the tools I had available, and despite checking twice, somehow managed to miss the fact that something new had been added to one of the two copies of the section. Since I couldn't find any new content, however, I just reverted back to the version before the edit; I assumed that Misou had been trying to add some comment but that the comment had been swallowed up by the same glitch that caused the duplication.

My edit was a good-faith attempt to clean up a mess. For Misou to jump all over that good-faith effort and scream about "vandalization", even after he is aware of the duplication caused by his own edit which required cleanup efforts in the first place, is an unseemly display of poisonous paranoia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith is valid for unexperienced Wikipedia editors, and not even for those if the accuser is Antaeus Feldspar and the newbie is myself. Remember? Anyway, you won't get baby-treatment. Otherwise I am happy that found that edit. Further reference goes to the rv's you follow me with. I get the impression that you are trying to incite a personal vendetta here between you and me. I am not interested in that, you will need to find someone else. Misou 03:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: "Even though 'Assume good faith' means 'Do not leap to hysterical accusations of ulterior motives and willful wrongdoing when simpler explanations such as not being aware of particular rules or not being aware of certain relevant information are possible', I, Misou, have decided that Antaeus Feldspar is unworthy of being treated with such consideration. Even though at all other times I treat his experience as worthless and meaningless, for this one purpose I will choose to regard his experience as so vast and mighty that he is incapable of human error, and thus deserving of all the hysterical condemnation I can heap on him for what must by process of elimination have been sinister vicious willful wrongdoing. Oh, and I will also reiterate my past false accusations that Antaeus Feldspar has failed to assume good faith in regards to me: when he discovered my wrongful attempt to mark for 'proposed deletion' an article that had already survived two AfDs and was therefore obviously not one of the "uncontroversial deletion candidates" that proposed deletion is intended for, he failed to attribute my incorrect action to a simple good-faith explanation, such as me not being aware that articles which have survived AfD are not eligible for proposed deletion, or being unaware that the article survived two previous AfDs. Well, actually, he proposed both those simple good-faith explanations, but he didn't do it nicely enough to suit me, so I'll simply continue to allege that he failed to assume good faith, no matter what the facts may be." -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misou's accusations

WARNING: Wikipedia does not take any responsibility for physical or mental damage as a result of reading the following "discussion".

Honestly. Boys! And girl! Can you get back to actual edits or what? COFS 05:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COFS, I've been doing both. I don't appreciate being accused of intentionally misquoting a source. Anynobody 05:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I thought this is the normal behavior in here. Incomplete quotes, out-of-context quotes, irrelevant dicta. As long as it smears Scientologists anything seems to be appropriate. COFS 16:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Misou when did Antaeus Feldspar delete content on this talk page?
2. I didn't write the quote you wanted citation for, I happened to see the quote it was referring to in the original document and figured whoever first put it in included the full quote. (Incidentally you are leaving out a word too "here") Accusing me of intentionally misquoting the source is incorrect. (Trying to do something like on purpose would be pretty stupid considering I was posting a primary source).
3. Making the accusation in the edit summary is both cowardly (if you want to accuse me of something about this article bring your accusations here), and a violation of what that field is actually used for. Anynobody 05:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some proof to show you are dead wrong about me. Justanother made this edit before I even started editing on Wikipedia, it's been like that for a LONG time. Anynobody 06:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to the last non-vandalized version and made the corrections noted. Anynobody 06:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Anynobody, to ignore you. But your accusations are confused and you might want to straighten it out first. I am not sorry that you didn't make it to become an Admin. Come again. Misou 03:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't accused you of anything Misou. You accused Antaeus Feldspar of deleting content here and you accused me of intentionally misquoting a reference in your edit summary, So kindly explain your accusations, Anynobody 04:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing your fellow editors of vandalizing in a content dispute is inappropriate on either side, is uncivil, and borders on personal attack. Please lose the habit - that to all concerned including myself if I have been guilty of same. Thank you. --Justanother 14:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking to me or Misou? I'm not saying Misou vandalized the page, I'm saying the page has been vandalized a lot recently: history. Anynobody 23:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned you Justanother to illustrate that the error in the quote has been there for a long time and that supporters missed it too. Nothing negative intended, since I doubt Misou would believe you let it stay so long on purpose. Anynobody 02:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AN, I do not think that you are one calling other editor's work vandalism. Here is an example by User:Fubar Obfusco. Others do it too. Not OK. --Justanother 02:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts to remove cited, sourced, relevant information from this article, in pursuit of the same tired old failed effort by the Church of Scientology to suppress reporting of its history and crimes, will always fail here.

CoS staff and public need to understand this. Wikipedia is not a "critic" site any more than it is a Church site. This is not xenu.net and it is not Lermanet. However, we have no tolerance whatsoever for censorship, for negationism, for attempts by partisans of any stripe to silence the truthful reporting of history, including unpleasant facts of history.

Wikipedians will not permit Scientologists to censor unpleasant facts about Scientology's history, any more than we would permit Turks to censor cited historical facts about Turkey's genocide of Armenians; or Republicans to censor cited historical facts about Abu Ghraib; or Communists to censor facts about Stalin's purges; what-have-you.

We know that many Scientologists have tried to censor facts about the Church's history, just as we know that many Turks have tried to censor the Armenian genocide, and so forth. We are not oblivious to these attempts at censorship. We resist them because we hate censorship, not out of hate for Scientology or Turkey.

(We also know that there must be anti-censorship Scientologists just as there are anti-censorship Turks and Republicans and Communists. We invite them to work with us here. But there is no place here for pro-censorship partisans; censorship is inherently anti-NPOV and as such incompatible with working on Wikipedia.)

We aren't anti-Scientology; we're pro-truth. --FOo 04:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice speech. Here is one for you. While Wikipedians have in the past turned a blind and uncaring eye to propagandizing in the Scientology articles and the proliferance of highly POV, non-RS opinionated pseudo-sources, they did it more out of ignorance than out of ill-will. That is the neutral editors. Other editors have, IMO, snickered and gleefully rubbed their hands while fighting any attempt by Scientologists and neutral editors that are truly "pro-truth" to remove this inappropriate material and blatant bias. Which one are you, sir? I think your edits and your comments are telling. Including your above bit of propagandizing. Guess what, sir, you and your ilk have allowed Wikipedia to become a near-mirror of xenu or lerma. When have you, sir, ever removed a bit of scandalous opinion "sourced" solely by xenu or lerma? Never, I would wager. Yet how quick are you and your ilk to remove anything that hints of "pro-Scientology POV" sourced in anything less than impeccable RS? I ask only that the same standards be applied to anti-Scientology material as have been applied here to pro-Scientology material and not vice-versa because the standards applied to anti-Scientology material have been hideously low indeed. But you, sir, and your ilk, did little, if anything, to address that, did you? I invite you, sir, to join me in addressing these articles because if what we have now is representative of "your group", I think I will pass on joining as, I imagine, would most editors here if they were to give it more than a passing thought. You, sir, do not speak for Wikipedia or Wikipedians. --Justanother 05:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certain Turks also insist that anyone who brings up the Armenian genocide is an anti-Turkish bigot, just as you seem to insist that anyone who brings up crimes committed by or for CoS is anti-Scientology. Likewise, there are those who think that talking about the abuses committed by the U.S. government at Abu Ghraib makes one anti-American.

However, relating the historical truth is only anti-Turkish if you believe that history is anti-Turkish. Likewise, relating the facts about Scientology is only anti-Scientology if you think the facts are anti-Scientology. Is that the position you want to be in? Because that's where you're putting yourself.

It is a well-documented fact that L. Ron Hubbard vastly exaggerated his personal accomplishments -- in academia (as a "nuclear physicist"), in the U.S. Navy, and otherwise. It isn't "anti-Scientology" to report this fact; it's just truth. --FOo 06:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foo, so what. Stop drooling. The discussion here is whether AHL and company are reliable source, them being open, active and vocal critics of Hubbard, Scientology and the whole lot. They have an openly destructive agenda. I don't care, what they have on their websites. I give a damn on their opinion and they have a right to voice it. But this is Wikipedia. This is a place for neutral information of an encyclopedic character. This is not MySpace, YouTube or some blogosphere. This is a place where also you have to hold back with your diatribes. I did not see you doing something against sources like digg.com or some blog (anyone can smear). I am missing your great calls for neutrality when some Scientologists got overrun in Wikipedia (COFS seems to be one), by a drooling crowd of pitbull writers. You are hiding in the crowd, man, feeling safe because Scientology lawyers care shit about this place (and I wonder why, seeing this obvious crap in the Scientology-related articles). If I would be them, I'd gear up for class action against Wikipedia - for discrimination - and name you as a witness. Misou 03:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Justanother 05:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC) said[reply]

While Wikipedians have in the past turned a blind and uncaring eye to propagandizing in the Scientology articles and the proliferance of highly POV, non-RS opinionated pseudo-sources, they did it more out of ignorance than out of ill-will. That is the neutral editors.

Do you see anyone doing that here, and if so regarding what issues? You're probably right about some people being out to propagandize on Scientology articles in general, but if neutral editors are messing up somehow here we need to know specifics. I'm preparing to add information about Lt. Hubbard's brief time with Naval Intelligence/what happened in Australia, and his time aboard the other two ships in his career, YP-422 and Algol.

Before I clean up, upload the documents, and add my edits I want to know what you have issues with here to save myself any unnecessary work. Anynobody 23:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of exhausting my reverts, I would appreciate if User:COFS could enlighten us how the segment he deleted [17] and "...so we see the African tribesman, with his complete contempt for the truth, and his emphasis on brutality and savagery..."<ref>Hubbard, L. Ron, ''Scientology: Fundamentals of Thought''. Copenhagen: New Era Publications, 1997. ISBN 1900944979, p. 77</ref> is out of context. --Tilman 18:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COFS seems to be blocked right now. I got curious and looked it up, and I might be able to enlighten you on this. The quote is wrong. It is not "African tribesman" but "primitive tribesman" with no qualification where this tribe might be. Then the full quote is "Self-created data is then not a bad thing. Neither is education. But one without the other, to hold it in some balance will bring about a no-game condition or a no-civilization. Just as individuals can be seen by observing nations, so we see the primitive tribesman, with his complete contempt for truth and his emphasis on brutality and savagery for others (but not himself) is a no-civilization." This quote is from a chapter called "Civilization and Savagery". The essence of this chapter is that the more education is prevented in a nation and the more self-created data (this is personal observation, i.e. primary sources) is prevented, the more savagery and the less civilization you get. Nothing about blacks or Africans or what have you. Just an example for people who have not been educated and some really good reasons why they should be educated. The quote is not only out of context but it is used to give an example for Hubbard writing about "colored people". Obviously - to follow the purpose of slandering Hubbard - the quote had to be falsified to fit the bill. By the way, the same falsification was done to the other quote. Allegedly Hubbard wrote: "Unlike the yellow and brown people, the white does not usually believe he can get attention from matter or objects. The yellow and brown believe for the most part ... that rocks, trees, walls, etc., can give them attention.". Now, this is false again. The actual book text says: "Unlike people devoted to an ancient spiritual heritage, those of more recent, largely Western, societies do not usually believe they can get attention from matter or objects. The former believe for the most part (and it is all a matter of consideration) that rocks, trees, walls, etc., can give them attention." The whole chapter, entitled "Identity and Attention", discusses how a game is made up. Actually the quotes are not even out of context, they actually do not even exist! Both quotes have been a) falsified and b) put in there to activate "blacks" against Hubbard. The motivation behind this and motivation of those keeping it in there by all means, is clearly opposite to the purpose of Wikipedia. I am happy that you did not fall for it. CSI LA 22:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSI LA, I am afraid you have made an understandable mistake. It is not as simple as "if I look in the first edition I can find of the book with that title and I find the text in a different form than it was quoted here, the person who quoted here falsified the quote." What is far more likely is that you are reading from an edition of the book other than the one referenced -- i.e., the edition in which you "checked" the quote was not Hubbard, L. Ron, Scientology: Fundamentals of Thought. Copenhagen: New Era Publications, 1997. ISBN 1900944979. It is simply a fact that despite the prohibitions against altering Hubbard's words, they have been altered, with different editions changing Hubbard's phrasings and sometimes leaving out inconvenient sections. For instance, let me show you the "tribesman" paragraph, complete, as it appears in my copy of Fundamentals:

Self-created data is, then, not a bad thing, neither is education, but one without the other to hold it in some balance will bring about a no-game condition or a no-civilization. Just as individuals can be seen, by observing nations, so we see the African tribesman, with his complete contempt for truth and his emphasis on brutality and savagery for others but not himself, is a no-civilization. And we see at the other extreme China, slavishly dedicated to ancient scholars, incapable of generating within herself sufficient rulers to continue, without bloodshed, a nation.

My copy, by the way, is Hubbard, L. Ron, Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought. Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, 1997. ISBN 0-88404-503-X and the paragraph in question is in the middle of page 113. And here in the same copy are two paragraphs comparing the "white" to "yellow and brown people", which occupy roughly the bottom half of page 35 and the upper third of page 36:

Unlike yellow and brown people, the white does not usually believe he can get attention from matter or objects. The yellow and brown believe for the most part (and it is all a matter of consideration) that rocks, trees, walls, etc., can give them attention. The white man seldom believes this and so is likely to become anxious about people.

Thus the white saves people, prevents famine, flood, disease and revolution for people as the only purveyors⁶ of attention are scarce. The white goes further. He often believes that he can get attention only from whites and that yellow and brown people's attention is worthless. Thus the yellow and brown races are not very progressive, but, by and large, saner. And the white race is progressive but more frantic. The yellow and brown races do not understand white concern for "bad conditions" since what are a few million dead men? There are plenty of identities and there is plenty of attention, they think. The white can't understand them. Nor can they understand the white.

[For completeness's sake, the footnote on page 35 referenced: "6. purveyors: providers or suppliers."]

So while your mistake in thinking the quotes "do not even exist" is understandable... it is in fact a mistake, because the quotes do exist, even if they have been altered by the publishers into more acceptable forms for later editions. Which edition do you have? I think it might be good to note in the article that the quotes are not the same from edition to edition of the book, and that direct references to race such as "yellow and brown people" have been replaced with terms such as "people devoted to an ancient spiritual heritage". -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]